Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — HEALTH

Powered Wheelchairs

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received about the provision of powered wheelchairs; and if he will make a statement.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): We have received a number of representations about the provision of indoor and outdoor powered wheelchairs.

Mr. Thurnham: After the success of the pilot schemes in Manchester and Newcastle, will my hon. Friend make sure that sufficient funds are available to maintain national progress? Will he see what can be done to reduce the very high costs of powered wheelchairs?

Mr. Dorrell: As my hon. Friend knows, it was always the intention that the services that are currently run by the Disablement Services Authority should be transferred to health authorities with effect from April this year. We have set in place arrangements that will ring-fence the funding that is currently granted to the Disablement Services Authority for two years, to ensure that, in the immediate aftermath of the transfer, the real level of provision will be maintained.

Mr. Frank Field: Does the Minister think it fair that some of the most disabled people in Birkenhead are those who are least likely to get a powered wheelchair? If he does not think that that is fair, what will he do about it?

Mr. Dorrell: What we are doing about it is that, from April, the local health authority will have the resources available to make a properly prioritised decision about the way in which those resources should be used. It will be for the hon. Gentleman to take up that matter with his local health authority to ensure that the people who need such services have them provided.

Mr. Atkinson: Will my hon. Friend take advantage of this opportunity to pay tribute to the work of the various associations for the disabled and the St. John Ambulance brigade, whose work makes the lives of those who rely on wheelchairs much more normal?

Mr. Dorrell: I am happy to take the opportunity that my hon. Friend presents to pay tribute to the role of the voluntary agencies in this and many other matters related

to health. It is right also to take this opportunity to draw attention to the valuable work that has been done by the Disablement Services Authority, which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister when he held a different brief. It has made a substantial improvement in the efficiency with which resources are used to the benefit of the patients who use such services.

Mr. Alfred Morris: Is not it the general view, after the pilot experiments in Manchester and Newcastle, that the Government's offer of £1 million in response to the DSA's request for £10 million is woefully inadequate? After all, we are talking here about independent living for people who would otherwise have to rely on much more expensive institutional care. Will powered wheelchairs be available for casualties from the Gulf if, ultimately, they can be of help?

Mr. Dorrell: The decision on the provision of a powered wheelchair for an individual patient will be for health authorities and clinicians. From April, the £112 million budget for disablement services—the provision of wheelchairs and of artificial limbs—will be transferred to local health authorities so that they can use the resources in a way that reflects local priorities. That seems to be the most effective way of ensuring that resources are well used.

District Health Funding

Mr. Teddy Taylor: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he is giving to regional health authorities about the time scale to be adopted in transferring the funding of districts to the capitation system; and if he will make a statement.

The Secretary of State for Health (Mr. William Waldegrave): All regional health authorities have submitted details of their proposals for achieving funding based on weighted capitation at district level. We are analysing the method and pace of change proposed by the regions and will be formulating a national policy and timetable shortly.

Mr. Taylor: As authorities such as Southend, which has traditionally been woefully underfunded, were looking forward to the new Government proposals that would give them a fairer deal, is my right hon. Friend aware of the serious concern, first, that there might be an unduly extended time scale for change and, secondly, and more important, that the regional health authorities can adjust the figures as they see fit to make allowances for what they assess as deprivation? Bearing in mind the fact that regional health authorities are not subject to any democratic control, will my right hon. Friend see to it personally that they do not undermine his excellent plans?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am aware of the anxiety in Southend because my hon. Friend has made his concerns clear to us. There are two aspects of the matter. First, it is fair to say that the potential gains for Southend, which will come through in the end, must be set against the disruption to the losers in the process. It is fair to take a little longer so that the disruption is tolerable. Secondly, I can set my hon. Friend's mind at rest that all the formulae produced by the regions will have to come to my Department for approval and I shall ensure that they are fair.

Mr. Ashley: Is the Secretary of State aware that he should not be too tolerant with the regional health authorities? I endorse what was said a moment ago. If the Secretary of State does not insist on the authorities allocating resources on a weighted capitation basis, underprivileged areas such as north Staffordshire will not receive the money to which they are entitled. Will the Secretary of State press them strongly?

Mr. Waldegrave: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the same assurance as I gave earlier. The plans put forward by the regions will be carefully scrutinised in the Department to make sure that they are consistent and sensible.

Mr. Hayes: While warmly welcoming the minimum 10 per cent. cash increase, which should make it a great deal easier to introduce weighted capitation at district level, may I ask my right hon. Friend to take into account poor beleaguered Essex, which year after year has suffered cash shortages in the national health service? Will my right hon. Friend do what he can to support our new regional chairman, who is very able and supportive?

Mr. Waldegrave: I strongly endorse what my hon. Friend said about the regional chairman, who is strengthening management throughout his area. I take my hon. Friend's point. He understands why I have slowed down by, I hope, no more than a year the move to full weighted capitation at the regional level so that there is not too much disruption in the process.

Gulf War Casualties

Mr. Strang: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what steps he has taken to ensure that the best medical facilities in this country are available when needed to treat Gulf war coalition casualties; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lofthouse: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received with regard to the additional resourcing requirements of hospitals likely to be caring for possible casualties of the Gulf war.

Mr. Waldegrave: Health authorities have made arrangements to treat British Gulf casualties. The national health service will be able to recover the full costs of such treatment.

Mr. Strang: Has the Secretary of State heard the Prime Minister's warning that Saddam Hussein might soon resort to the use of chemical weapons? Does he agree with the views of medical experts that in the worst-case scenario, our burns and plastic surgery units might be overwhelmed with thousands of casualties? Is he satisfied that health authorities are taking all immediate steps to increase the number of staff available in such units, as it is likely that staff, rather than equipment and buildings, will limit the number of people who can be treated quickly?

Mr. Waldegrave: Yes, Sir. I am satisfied that the health service is well prepared. The remarks to which the hon. Gentleman may be referring were originally made by Professor McGrouther, a great man in plastic surgery. I am happy to say that last week he said that he was quite satisfied that the health service is fully prepared.

Mr. Lofthouse: Will the Secretary of State give an assurance to the House that no patients will be turned away from hospitals before any Gulf casualties arrive in Britain? If it has to happen, will he ensure that national health service patients share the sacrifice equally with private patients in national health service beds?

Mr. Waldegrave: We do not believe that it will be necessary for patients to be turned away from hospitals or for wards to be emptied at present. It is worth remembering that if the worst comes to the worst and there are many casualties, there will be a considerable warning time before patients begin to arrive in national health service hospitals.

Mr. Michael Morris: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I have checked with Northampton district health authority and in particular Northampton general hospital and that I have only the utmost praise for the preparations that have been undertaken? May I say a particular thank you to the Department of Health?

Mr. Waldegrave: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I join him in saying that the Gulf crisis shows the health service once again at its very best. The speedy co-operation that has been exercised between the different levels—region, centre, district and hospital—is exemplary.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Government will meet the full extra cost of Gulf casualties so that any increase in waiting lists does not last too long?

Mr. Waldegrave: I give my hon. Friend that assurance in the clearest terms.

Rev. Martin Smyth: While accepting the Secretary of State's assurance about the immediate care of casualties, may I ask about their long-term care? Will they be left to depend on local charities or will adequate provision be made for them in their communities?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. The Ministry of Defence and the forces have considerable expertise in the matter. My hon. Friend the Minister for Health will be answering a question later today about the role of the social services in this.

Mr. Allason: Did my right hon. Friend see the televised broadcast on behalf of the Soldiers', Sailors' and Airmen's Families Association during the weekend and does he agree that the point might be misinterpreted? Will he confirm that there is plenty of room for rehabilitation and recuperation for any Gulf casualties and that the private sector will not have to contribute places?

Mr. Waldegrave: As I said, the national health service and the organisations that are accountable to the House are well prepared for any challenge that may face them.

Mr. Robin Cook: In view of the Secretary of State's welcome assurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Mr. Lofthouse) that it should not be necessary for hospitals to turn away patients now, may I invite him to comment on a letter that I have seen that was sent to a woman in her 80s advising her that many operations have been cancelled at the hospital in question because beds are already closed for Gulf casualties? Does he agree that it would be wrong if elderly patients were to become early casualties of the Gulf war? Will he urge


health authorities to meet the new emergency not by closing even more beds but by bringing back into service some of the 27,000 that have been closed under Conservative rule?

Mr. Waldegrave: If the hon. Gentleman had been interested in receiving a serious reply to a serious question, he would have been courteous enough to raise the matter with me earlier. If he will send me the letter, I will give him a proper reply.

Mr. Sims: Although the treatment of Gulf casualties may mean the postponement of non-urgent operations, may we be assured that there will be no diminution in the ability of the NHS to respond to civil emergencies such as multiple car crashes or the recent Cannon street train crash?

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend's point is entirely fair. I have been assured by the chief executive of the health service that it will be able to maintain its emergency cover for civil emergencies. It is worth remembering that compared with the scale of activities of the NHS, which treats about 8·5 million cases a year, even the worst-case scenarios about which the commentators have been telling us should be relatively well within its capacity.

Manchester Hospitals

Mr. Tony Lloyd: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has for a review of hospital services in the Manchester/Trafford area following the opting-out decision by central Manchester hospitals.

Mr. Dorrell: None, Sir.

Mr. Lloyd: Is the Minister prepared to put on record in this place what his colleague in another place told me in a letter: that when the new children's hospital is built in central Manchester—on the same site as the now to be opted-out hospital—it will itself be considered for opting out? Is he aware that in the north-west region we already have about double the national child mortality rate and that in central Manchester we have triple the rate? Is the Minister aware that the people of the region do not want opting out, which is irrelevant to their needs, but the resources to make sure that our children do not die?

Mr. Dorrell: No hospital has opted out of the NHS and we shall not entertain a proposal from any NHS hospital to opt out of the NHS. NHS hospitals are not for sale. The change that we are introducing is designed to give more power to the local management teams of hospitals to use the resources devoted to those hospitals to the best advantage of the patients.

Mr. Knox: Will my hon. Friend explain why Christie hospital in Manchester has refused to supply the drug interleukin to my constituent Mrs. Kendrick, even though it had been prescribed by Dr. Thatcher of that hospital? Does this have anything to do with the reorganisation of hospitals in Manchester?

Mr. Dorrell: It has nothing to do with the reorganisation of hospitals. There has been some discussion of the subject in the press today and I make three simple points about it: interleukin does not have a product licence in this country or in the United States; one manufacturer of the drug has decided not to proceed with

clinical trials because of doubts over its efficacy, and the decision not to use the drug in Christie hospital was taken by the drug and therapeutics committee of that hospital before Christmas, nine of the 12 members of that committee being medical people.

Mr. Robin Cook: In view of the Minister's reference to the minute of the 12 consultants, may I remind him that it clearly specified that the consultants decided that there was general support for interleukin, but that the treatment could not be used within existing funds? Is not it clear from the very committee from which he quotes that its decision not to proceed with a drug that had been used in that hospital for four years, regardless of whether it had a licence, was due to the deficit at Christie hospital? Three years ago, even this Government met hospital deficits with extra funds, not extra cuts. Does not the Minister appreciate that the response to the case shows that the public would much rather that the Christie hospital deficit was cleared by the taxpayer than by not treating Mrs. Kendrick?

Mr. Dorrell: Is the hon. Gentleman inviting the House to put his clinical opinion ahead of that of the Committee on Safety of Medicines or the Food and Drug Administration? The use of that drug in Christie hospital was part of a clinical trial and the hospital's drug and therapeutics committee decided that there were greater priorities for the use of the resources available to the hospital. The Labour party is as explicit as the Government in proposing that the only way to run a publicly funded free national health service is on the basis of there being a limit to the resources available to fund it.

Heart Attacks

Mrs. Gorman: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the rate of heart attacks in (a) men and (b) women (i) under 50 and (ii) over 50 years.

The Minister for Health (Mrs. Virginia Bottomley): In 1989, the death rate per 10,000 population in England from acute myocardial infarction was 1·03 for men and 0·13 for women under the age of 50 and 68·81 for men and 45·88 for women over the age of 50.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend for her reply. She is saying that young women hardly ever have heart attacks or strokes, whereas the number of women over 50 who suffer those conditions is rapidly catching up with the number of men. They are the largest single cause of death for women in that older age group. Is my hon. Friend aware of the research work carried out at King's College hospital showing that hormone replacement therapy is a way to protect women from such an early death? Will she state the amount of money currently spent in the health service on making hormone replacement therapy available to women in that older age group?

Mrs. Bottomley: It would be difficult to be in this place with my hon. Friend without having a passing acquaintance with the subject of hormone replacement therapy and the work undertaken at King's College hospital. She has identified the important contribution that the treatment can make. We spend £29·5 million in the health service on hormone replacement therapy and the number of prescriptions has tripled over the past 10 years. Although there is evidence of the contribution of HRT in


preventing cardiovascular disease, it is not conclusive. My hon. Friend must bear with us while further research is undertaken to assess the effects of HRT on those with osteoporosis and cardiovascular disease.

Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister comment on the stark contrast highlighted by the Public Accounts Committee's report on coronary heart disease? In this country we spend£10 million on prevention and £500 million on the treatment of the biggest killer, which kills 3,000 people a week. That stark contrast in expenditure shows that the Government need to respond to the need for prevention.
Since the Public Accounts Committee reported, what has the Department of Health done about monitoring the training of ambulance crews so that they can deal with the matter? The Minister must know that half the people who die from heart disease die in the first two hours. When the Department of Health gave evidence to the Public Accounts Committee, the Department was not monitoring the extra training being given to ambulance crews in that vital sector.

Mrs. Bottomley: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's recognition that prevention is better than cure. I hope that he will join us in carrying forward our strategies and priorities for health. Certainly, the prevention of heart disease—whether through the GPs' contract, the "Look after your Heart" campaign or environmental and lifestyle factors, especially smoking—is crucial. The hon. Gentleman will know that treatment is also costly. The number of heart transplants has risen from three to 295 in 10 years and the number of coronary artery bypass grafts has risen from 3,100 to almost 13,000.
As for the training of ambulance crews, a great deal of work is being done to ensure that they are properly qualified and that defibrillators are available in ambulances.

General Practitioners

Mr. Hind: To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many general practitioners have opted to become budget holders; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Waldegrave: I am pleased to be able to tell my hon. Friend that there are currently around 300 practices undertaking the preparatory work necessary to become fundholders from 1 April.

Mr. Hind: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the essence of the internal market in the NHS is choice and that if it is to succeed, more general practitioners must be encouraged to take up budget holding and more hospitals, such as Wrightington on the edge of my constituency, must be encouraged to become national health trusts?

Mr. Waldegrave: The benefits of both systems are becoming increasingly understood. Both systems are voluntary, but tremendous benefits are available to patients from the GP fund-holding scheme—a matter which I hope that Opposition Members will consider in due course, because it would be paradoxical if that aspect, which is aimed at giving help to patients and those most directly representative of them, should run into opposition from the Labour party.

Mr. Bradley: Is the Secretary of State aware that the denial of interleukin-2 to a patient at Christie hospital

shows the problem of fixed budgets? In a written answer to me the Department of Health said that that drug could be used on a named patient. The drug and therapeutics committee said that the drug was not being prescribed not because it did not agree with it in principle but because
this could not be achieved within existing funding.
That drug has not been allowed to Mrs. Kendrick and 50 others because the budget is overspent. Will the Secretary of State please review the position and ensure that life-saving drugs are available to all patients if they are about to die?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important matter, but the question was too long.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State has dealt with the matter once. I repeat that the truth of the matter is that the drug and therapeutics committee of that hospital took an entirely sensible view that against the background of doubts about the drug—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman will find that at the time the meeting took place the committee believed that the drug had a product licence whereas in fact it did not. Other, more expensive drugs are still being prescribed in the hospital.
One doctor breaking ranks with his colleagues like that and taking an individual case is exactly the wrong way to make decisions about such matters and puts patients in a difficult position. We must stand on the clinical decisions of the committees in the hospitals. They have always had difficult decisions to make about alternative treatments. I am sure that the doctors in that hospital took the right decision, which was not to spend a large sum of money on a drug of doubtful efficacy.

Mr. Nicholas Winterton: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Health will be carefully monitoring the effects of the NHS reforms. If he and his colleagues wish to remain closely in touch with what is happening at the grass roots, will he accept an invitation from Cumberland house, the largest general practice in my constituency, which has opted for budget-holding status, to discuss what it sees as the advantages and some of the expected problems of budget holding?

Mr. Waldegrave: I visited my hon. Friend's constituency not very long ago, and very pleasant it was, too. I will try to fit another into my programme. I also visited two proposed budget-holding practices in East Anglia and south London, and I was very impressed by the enthusiasm shown at both. They will rapidly offer patients significant benefits.

Nurse Prescribing

Mr. Kirkwood: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proposals he has to introduce a system of limited drug prescribing for qualified nurses; and if he will make a statement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: We support the principle of nurse prescribing. The advisory group report on nurse prescribing and comments received during the consultation period identified a number of issues that require further work, which we are urgently carrying forward.

Mr. Kirkwood: Although the Government's support for limited nurse prescribing is welcome, does the Minister


acknowledge the suspicion that the Government are using delaying tactics by establishing independent cost benefit analysis of some of the problems that the consultation process reveals? When will we know the terms of reference of that analysis, and may we have an assurance that if it suggests that additional costs will be incurred because people who do not currently receive prescriptions will do so in future, that will not be a deciding factor in vetoing the scheme's introduction?

Mrs. Bottomley: I hope to disabuse the hon. Gentleman of such suspicions. The cost benefit analysis is important, and we hope to announce the details shortly. We will certainly make all the information available. However, there are other issues to be considered—such as deciding the precise formula, training, and the relationship between nurse and general practitioner prescribing. It is a complex matter, but the concept has strong support and we shall carry forward that work.

Mr. John Greenway: Is my hon. Friend aware that many practice nurses would welcome a limited prescribing arrangement? With proper training and a sensible list of drugs, it should be possible for nurses to relieve their practitioners of regular prescribing, thus releasing them for other work. When that bright initiative is in place, will the nurses be encouraged to prescribe generically, as is done in hospitals?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend makes a strong case, for nurse prescribing, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington (Mr. Fishburn), when he introduced his ten-minute Bill last week. Such an arrangement would help not only practice nurses but health visitors and district nurses. Many argue that they, too, could helpfully prescribe a limited range of items. With the greater emphasis being placed on community care, those other categories could certainly play a fuller part. I give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks. We are carrying forward that work and we want to see nurses play their part in prescribing.

NHS Management Board

Mr. Cousins: To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he proposes to make changes to the powers of the NHS management board.

Mr. Waldegrave: The NHS management board has not existed since 1989. I have no plans to make changes to the powers of the management executive that replaced it.

Mr. Cousins: Will the Secretary of State ensure that before all the management board members dwindle away to take up high-paid jobs in self-governing hospitals, they do something about the plight of low-paid NHS workers? I refer particularly to blood transfusion workers in the northern region, who have waited two and a half years for a pay regrading under the guidelines issues by the management board. Everyone is praising those workers, rightly, at this time—but will the Secretary of State ensure that they get properly paid as well?

Mr. Waldegrave: The management board has already dwindled away, because it no longer exists. However, I take the hon. Gentleman's point and he is right to say that

there are too many low-paid people in the health service. In the negotiations on ancillary pay, we should try to shift attention towards the lowest-paid.

Project 2000

Mr. David Porter: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the current funding of Project 2000.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: In this financial year, we have provided£30 million from central funding for the implementation of Project 2000. Next year, £71 million will be available.

Mr. Porter: Although the Royal College of Nursing has expressed concern that the speed of funding does not match the desire to implement Project 2000 as soon as possible, will my hon. Friend confirm that when it is in place throughout the country, its training provisions will make nursing a most attractive profession for the future?

Mrs. Bottomley: I can certainly give my hon. Friend that assurance. The East Suffolk, Great Yarmouth and Waveney nursing school in my hon. Friend's constituency was among those that received approval in the first wave. By the end of next year, half the nurses training will be in Project 2000 courses, by which time we shall have spent £109 million. That is a rapid rate of progress and, while I understand the desire to implement the scheme even faster, we are content with the speed at which Project 2000 courses—which lay the foundation for the professional nurses of the future—are introduced.

Dr. Kim Howells: Is the Minister aware that, laudable though the aims of Project 2000 are, some area health authorities are strapped for cash and are finding it difficult to identify proper campus sites for training nurses? Mid Glamorgan is a classic example. It is being forced to consider closing down the excellent rehabilitation centre at Talygarn to house nurses.

Mrs. Bottomley: My right hon. Friend recently announced our plans to carry forward the work on the Peat Marwick McLintock report on nurse education and its management, and also the work of working paper No. 10. We understand that there needs to be proper organisation of nurse training within the regions. I cannot comment on the hon. Gentleman's area, but can say only that, within the English health authorities, good headway has been made in introducing Project 2000 and we are certainly considering nurse education in a broader context as we look to the future.

Hospices

Mr. Bowis: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds the Government have allocated to the voluntary hospice movement.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: On 9 January I announced the allocation of an additional £16·96 million to health authorities in England for 1991–92 to enable authorities to increase the support that they give to hospice organisations. Last year that figure was £8 million.

Mr. Bowis: Does my hon. Friend agree that her figures confirm the Government's support for the increasing role that the voluntary hospice movement is playing, alongside the national health service? Will she continue to monitor


the costs of that movement, not least when it has to face unexpected costs such as national pay awards, and also when it loses money as a result of decisions taken by local Department of Social Security offices not to recognise voluntary contributions by patients to the running of those hospices?

Mrs. Bottomley: My hon. Friend speaks with authority about hospices, as the Trinity hospice provides a service for many of his constituents. Questions of income support are for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security—it is not the case that the higher rate is paid for those for whom no charge is made. I understand that his hospice received in the order of £443,000 last year from the health authority and from money made available by central Government. That was a 25 per cent. increase on the help that it received the year before.

Mr. Spearing: Can the Minister confirm that this welcome increase in grants to the hospice movement is partly based on the fact that it covers a wide spectrum of the public potential, and partly because it provides a unique service between hospice and home? Will she also confirm that, due to effects of the hospice upon the statutory service, any additional expenditure saves money elsewhere?

Mrs. Bottomley: I have no doubt that any additional money is providing good value by ensuring a quality service. All of us would want to pay tribute to the voluntary hospice movement and the work that it has undertaken in pioneering a quality service for the dying. The hon. Gentleman is right to identify not only those in hospice beds, but the excellent work achieved by hospices at home. With the rapid expansion in the voluntary hospice movement, it is important to integrate planning, consideration and provision between the voluntary hospice movement and national health service provision. We are proceeding with work to ensure that the two develop in tandem and in a spirit of co-operation.

Mr. Donald Thompson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the voluntary hospice movement is most welcome in all parts of every constituency and that this further help from the Government will be welcomed by the movement?

Mrs. Bottomley: I thank my hon. Friend for endorsing the warm tribute that all of us would want to pay to the hospice movement. The number of hospice beds has doubled in the past 10 years. As well as providing additional funding this year, we have decided to establish a research project into standards of palliative care and have also asked the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and Standing Nursing and Midwifery Advisory Committee to report back on the organisation of hospice care.

Hospital Beds, Sheffield

Mr. Duffy: To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he next expects to meet the chairman of the Trent regional health authority to discuss the hospital bed situation in the Sheffield health authority.

Mr. Dorrell: When I next meet Sir Michael Carlisle I shall congratulate him on the fact that the number of in-patients treated by Sheffield health authority has increased by 52 per cent. since 1979. I shall also

congratulate him on the fact that in-patient waiting lists in Sheffield have fallen by nearly 14 per cent. in the last 12 months, while the number of people waiting for more than 12 months is down by 56 per cent. over the same period.

Mr. Duffy: Nevertheless, 286 hospital beds have been for financial reasons lost in Sheffield over the past year. Red alerts continue, inevitably throwing a greater strain on surgical beds and waiting lists, out-patient facilities and the staff who must work the beds a good deal more intensively as a result. Does the Minister believe that the factual statment is a matter for congratulation?

Mr. Dorrell: The hon. Gentleman's difficulty is that he is pushed back on press releases and on repeating already well-repeated formulae. What seems more important to me is the fact that Sheffield health authority has shorter waiting lists and is treating more patients than ever before.

Gulf War Casualties

Mr. Rowe: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice he has given to social services departments relating to the care of service men injured or disabled in the Gulf conflict; and if he will publish it.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: The Department has today written to social services departments setting out the arrangments made by the Ministry of Defence and the national health service for treating Gulf casualties. I have placed a copy in the Library.

Mr. Rowe: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Does she realise that, in the event of a land war, there will probably be a number of seriously disabled casualties and that, when the national health service has done all that it can to stabilise their condition, some will require accommodatiton suitable for people in wheelchairs? Can my hon. Friend assure me that she will consult her colleagues in the Ministry of Defence and the Department of the Environment to ensure that sufficient accommodation of that kind is provided—even if it is only temporary—so that the houses in which those unfortunate people must bring up their families can be assessed with a view to adaptation?

Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend will know, the Ministry of Defence has well-organised arrangements for the welfare and support of casualties and their families, but, as he pointed out, it is difficult to make predictions. It will be important for local authorities to keep in close touch with the MOD and, if necessary, the Department of the Environment. We shall certainly play our part in that.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is the Minister aware that social services departments in London are currently under great pressure? They will all wish to provide the maximum resources and support for any Gulf casualties, but will the Minister make it clear to them that the Government will provide all the necessary resources?

Mrs. Bottomley: I remind the hon. Gentleman that social services departments throughout the country have been given the largest increase in their standard spending assessments for 15 years—an increase of 23·5 per cent. We anticipate that local authorities will be able to respond to circumstances as they normally do in civil emergencies, and will play their part. As the letter makes clear, in the


first place they will need to work closely with the Ministry of Defence, and use their existing arrangements for supporting casualties and their families.

Heart Disease

Mr. Simon Coombs: To ask the Secretary of State for Health what new initiatives he is considering to combat coronary heart disease.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Combating coronary heart disease is one of our biggest challenges. That was why we launched the joint Department of Health/Health Education Authority "Look After Your Heart" programme in 1987. A new five-year strategy was recently launched.

Mr. Coombs: Is my hon. Friend aware that the number of people who die daily in this country of premature coronary heart disease is equivalent to the number of passengers on a fully loaded jumbo jet? Does she realise that the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom are among the six countries with the world's worst record of coronary heart disease? How does she react to the report of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on cholesterol testing, and, in particular, to the idea of giving general practitioners information about how to deal with patients with above-average cholesterol levels in their blood?

Mrs. Bottomley: As my hon. Friend rightly says, there are about 160,000 deaths each year and about 35 million working days are lost each year through coronary heart disease. Although our record for coronary heart disease was extremely severe, I can assure my hon. Friend that we have already beaten the World Health Organisation's health-for-all target of 15 per cent; we have seen a reduction of 24 per cent. in our coronary heart disease rates. We want to do very much better. The report by the Standing Medical Advisory Committee on cholesterol testing is still being considered, but most certainly general practitioners, like the Health Education Authority and the health service generally, have a full part to play in combating this cause of early death.

Mr. Galbraith: Does the Minister agree that one of the most significant contributions that we can make to the reduction of coronary heart disease is to reduce the incidence of smoking in the population? What steps are the Government taking, therefore, to curtail the advertising of smoking and why are they seeking to gut the Bill brought forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley. East (Mr. Faulds), which would certainly significantly reduce smoking among children and the younger age group?

Mrs. Bottomley: I endorse the point made by the hon. Gentleman; something like 20 per cent. of the deaths are associated with smoking. We spend around £3 million campaigning to reduce smoking. It is deplorable that those under 16 should be sold cigarettes. I very much hope that we can take further steps to prevent this. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is today consulting on the tobacco labelling directive, further wording and the attention that can be drawn to the fact that smoking damages health.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Winnick: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that, as the recession bites even deeper in all parts of the country, not least in the west midlands, the country will simply not buy the nonsense that it is all due to the Gulf war? Is he aware, further, that people recognise that the recession and the devastation that are occurring in so many parts of the country are due to the disastrous policies of a discredited Government who simply do not know from day to day where they are going?

The Prime Minister: I certainly accept that there is a downturn in the economy and I have made that clear. But the hon. Gentleman must recognise that that downturn, in terms of investment and growth, comes from a very high level after a very lengthy period of growth. It is absolutely essential that we take the appropriate decisions now to ensure that we have a lower rate of inflation in the economy in the 1990s.

Mr. Hayes: Is not my right hon. Friend greatly encouraged by the fact that British investment outstrips that in Germany, France and Italy? Does not he think that British industry is getting rather fed up with the Labour party continually saying that there is no end to the recession in sight and no economic good news? Does he agree that it is becoming the party of the abominable no-men?

The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend knows, our investment record over recent years has been extremely good—a record unmatched elsewhere in the Community.

Mr. Kinnock: Since it is clear that before too many weeks have passed the Government will be forced to cut interest rates, why do they not do it now and save British industries and British home buyers absolutely pointless pain?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman should not be so desperate. If he panics in opposition, what might he do in government?

Mr. Kinnock: First, all observable panic is on the right hon. Gentleman's side of the House. Secondly, he will soon have a very good opportunity of finding out the strength of Labour in government.
It is all very well for the Prime Minister to try to avoid the question. It is not his business which he spent a lifetime building up that is now threatened; it is not his factory that is facing closure; and it is not his mortgage that threatens to put him and his family out of their home. Is he not ashamed that Britain, alone of all the major industrial countries, is facing, under his Government, prolonged slump—extended slump—because of his policies?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has clearly overlooked the fact that—[Interruption.]—I shall come directly to the question. The right hon. Gentleman


has clearly overlooked the fact that there is a recession in a number of countries. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the importance of interest rates. Nobody wants interest rates to be unduly high, but we need to ensure that we have a low inflation economy. That is the means to ensure that we have it.

Mrs. Peacock: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is aware of the many Gulf support groups that have been set up throughout the country to offer help and support to those families who have loved ones fighting in the Gulf. Will he join me today in sending best wishes to the two groups in my constituency, in Batley and Cleckheaton, who are doing a superb job?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly happy to do as my hon. Friend requests. I am delighted by the number of Gulf support groups that have been set up around the country and I wish them all well.

Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Skinner: Can the Prime Minister tell us how this war can have any moral or democratic purpose when British troops risk being slaughtered on the desert sands while the Kuwaiti royal family is gallivanting around the gambling dens and casinos, living it up? When the war is over and those Kuwaiti American stooges are back in power, with all their luxury, some British troops will be coming back to the dole queue, the poll tax and cardboard city. Is that the classless society that the Prime Minister talks about?

The Prime Minister: I always thought that the hon. Gentleman was against the sort of actions that we have seen in Kuwait by the Iraqis. I am sorry that I am wrong.

Dame Peggy Fenner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Dame Peggy Fenner: During my right hon. Friend's busy day I am sure that he will share my concern about the current proposals for reform of the common agricultural policy. Does he agree with me that we should not accept any reform that penalises the efficient British farmer, since that will not help the British consumer?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend. I share the view of the majority of hon. Members that further reform of the common agricultural policy is needed, but that must make European agriculture more, not less, open to market forces. As my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has been making clear in Brussels, we shall very strongly resist any proposals that penalise the efficient farmer and, in so doing, place the burden upon consumers.

Mr. Ashdown: Does the Prime Minister recall the very welcome words of the Foreign Secretary at the weekend when he said that when the fighting is over we must be prepared to use the peace wisely? May I therefore put to him this proposition: if the United Nations provides the

authority for fighting the war in the Gulf, the United Nations should have the responsibility for building the peace that follows it. Does the Prime Minister agree?

The Prime Minister: We shall certainly be discussing, both within the United Nations and beyond—with the Arab states that have the primary interest—what is necessary for the future security of the region.

Mr. Nicholls: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Nicholls: Has my right hon. Friend noted that for the last four months inflation has been running at about 1·9 per cent. per annum? Does not that show that the Government's policy of reducing inflation is working? Does not such a policy offer a far more certain way towards eventual interest rate reductions than the soft option advocated by the Leader of the Opposition by way of a devaluation?

The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend is right. Soft options tend to lead to hard times. Our policies are succeeding in reducing inflation. As inflation comes down there will be the opportunity for sustained interest rate reductions.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Prime Minister agree with me—

Mr. Dickens: I saw the hon. Lady on television.

Mr. Speaker: So did I.

Ms. Ruddock: Does the Prime Minister agree with me that, in keeping with the spirit and purposes of the United Nations, consent to the allied military action is limited to ending Iraq's occupation of Kuwait, that peace and security in the region can be achieved by other means, and that those means must include the removal of nuclear and chemical weapons throughout the region?

The Prime Minister: The present aims are set out perfectly clearly in Security Council resolutions. As to the second point in the hon. Lady's question, I think that it is a matter that everyone will wish to address after the conclusion of the conflict.

Mr. Wilshire: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Wilshire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever our party politics, we should all welcome the proposed abolition of the apartheid laws in South Africa? Does he agree also that, whatever we may think about that country's past, the best way to support its Government now is to help them make those changes as quickly as possible and to begin the process of reintegrating South Africa into the community of nations?

The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that it is necessary to support the South African Government. But perhaps even more relevant is support for the people of South Africa—all of them. President de Klerk has made a truly massive move forward and it is now for the international community to respond. I hope very much


that it will do so. I have already discussed the matter with the Secretary-General of the Commonwealth and with President Bush, and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary raised it with European Community Foreign Ministers yesterday. I spoke about it this morning with Mr. Hawke, the Australian Prime Minister. He and I agree very strongly that the time has come to begin lifting the Commonwealth measures, especially the sports sanctions, particularly in the case of those sports that are integrated in South Africa. All in all, the announcement by President de Klerk was a most welcome move forward.

Mr. Norman Hogg: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Hogg: Is the Prime Minister aware that the naval base at Rosyth in Scotland employs 5,000 naval and civilian personnel? Is he aware that we have received ministerial assurances that, in the defence review, all the options will be considered impartially? Is he aware of a secret study report showing that there is an intention to close Rosyth in the shortest possible time? Does not he agree that it is disgraceful that at a time when our naval personnel are serving in the Gulf, their home base is being threatened in this way?

The Prime Minister: No decision has been made to close Rosyth or any other naval base. We fully recognise the implications that closure would have for employment in the area. Those implications would be fully considered and examined before any such decision was taken.

Mr. Haselhurst: Can my right hon. Friend assure the House that if President Bush raises the question of transatlantic air routes he—the Prime Minister—will sustain the Government's position, as outlined by the Secretary of State for Transport, in a very strong and sensible defence of British civil aviation?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport is discussing these matters. I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend will defend our interests very robustly.

Mr. Eadie: How does the Prime Minister justify the salary of £225,000 per annum being paid to the new chairman of British Coal? Previous chairmen had a large industry and a comparatively small salary, whereas the present chairman is inheriting a very small industry and will have a large salary. Some of us suspect that his terms of reference are to make the industry smaller still.

The Prime Minister: The gentleman concerned is being paid according to his ability.

Mr. Moate: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Moate: Reverting to reform of the common agricultural policy, does my right hon. Friend agree that if, for social reasons, the Germans and French wish to subsidise their small farmers, they should be free to do so?

As the British taxpayer will next year spend £4 billion on agricultural subsidies, apparently to produce inadequate incomes for farmers and excessively high prices for consumers, is not it time we considered repatriating agricultural policy so that we can decide what is best for Britain?

The Prime Minister: The common agricultural policy is an established element of the European Community. I share my hon. Friend's view that it is an unsatisfactory one, and for that reason we are seeking to reform it.

Mr. Alan Williams: Is the Prime Minister aware that a measure of the underlying weakness of our economy is the fact that, excluding North sea oil, in the past three and a half years, at constant prices, we have had a trade deficit of £85 billion? Why does he believe that we can solve that problem with the same rate of exchange that caused it?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is selective in his criticism. He wholly forgets that we had eight successive years of growth, a period in which our investment has grown faster than that of Germany, Italy, France and anyone else in the European Community and we now have a wholly different industrial position from that which we inherited in 1979.

Mr. Irvine: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Irvine: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the concern of many firms operating in the financial services sector about the European Commission's draft directive on capital adequacy? Does he agree that some of the requirements imposed on capital adequacy are excessive, and will he make vigorous representations to ensure that, where appropriate, they are reduced?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the concerns that my hon. Friend raises. He will know that firms that act purely as advisers are exempt from the requirements of the capital adequacy directive. We do not wish to see inappropriate or unnecessary capital requirements imposed on any United Kingdom investment firm.

Mr. Barron: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Tuesday 5 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. Barron: Under the private Bill procedure, the Government have always accepted their neutrality to be one of support for a private Bill. Last Thursday night, the Southampton Rapid Transit Bill was defeated by the use of the payroll vote, including 10 members of the Cabinet, two of whom are members of the War Cabinet, which was suspended when that vote took place. What has changed the Government's mind? Was it political judgment or political spite?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should know that that was the individual decision of Members of this House.

United States Forces (United Kingdom)

The Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Tom King): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the position of United States nuclear capable forces in the United Kingdom.
The United States Government have been considering their arrangements for the forward support of their nuclear missile submarines and for the basing of their dual capable aircraft in the United Kingdom. These are being affected in the case of the submarines by the withdrawal of the Poseidon missile submarines, which removes the need for forward support in the north-eastern Atlantic area.
In respect of the dual capable aircraft, the implications of the changed situation of the Warsaw pact are particularly relevant. The United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Cheney, advised me of their proposals, which have since been discussed between us, and I can now advise the House of the outcome, which is being simultaneously made public in the United States.
First, as a result of a decision to accelerate the withdrawal from service of the United States Poseidon missile submarines, the United States Navy will, by the end of this year, no longer have a requirement for its submarine support facility at Holy Loch and this facility will therefore close. The exact date of closure has yet to be determined, but is likely to be some time in 1992.
Secondly, United States F111E and EF111 aircraft at present based at RAF Upper Heyford and F111F aircraft currently based at RAF Lakenheath will be withdrawn to the United States. The F111Fs will deploy to Upper Heyford for possibly some six weeks each year for exercises and training. These aircraft will remain committed to NATO and would return to basing in the United Kingdom in crisis or war. As envisaged for some time under NATO plans for the restructuring of alliance nuclear forces, United States F15E aircraft will be deployed to the United Kingdom, beginning in 1992; and it has now been decided that they are to be based at RAF Lakenheath. They will be deployed in smaller numbers than the F111 wing currently based there. These changes will be completed in 1994. The net effect will be fewer, but more modern dual capable aircraft in the United Kingdom.
Changes in the types of equipment needed to sustain our defences and to reflect the new international security situation have led to these different needs. The Government understand the reasons for these decisions, but, none the less, they will have significant local economic consequences.
The constituencies of a number of my hon. Friends and Opposition Members will be affected. In particular, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is giving particular attention to the implications of the closure of the Holy Loch facility.

Mr. Martin O'Neill: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his statement. The withdrawal of Poseidon missile submarines was expected and is welcome. Can he confirm that the closure of the facility is earlier than anticipated? Is there any possibility of its being used in future for the docking of United States hunter-killer submarines with dual capable cruise missiles?
The House notes that the Secretary of State for Scotland will give attention to the economic consequences of the closure. Can the Secretary of State for Defence ensure that public funds, both British and American, will be available for the regeneration of the Dunoon area? Can he say whether the more limited use of Upper Heyford is in response to local concern about aircraft noise? Can he tell the House whether the United States F15E will be fitted with SRAM(T) missiles and, if so, which other European nations in NATO will be offering similar facilities?

Mr. King: I can confirm that the closure is a little earlier than was originally envisaged. It is possible that there will be periodic visits but not the forward support position of United States naval tenders and possibly hunter-killer submarines.
The hon. Gentleman asked about assistance for the area. The United States, which has a number of direct employees at Holy Loch and the other bases, is advising them at the moment about redundancies and about its efforts to assist them to find alternative employment. As I have already advised the House, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is considering the implications of the closure for Dunoon.
As to the weaponry that might be carried by the aircraft, there is no change from the present weaponry. There is no decision yet as to whether the United States will proceed with what is known as SRAM(T) or TASM. That is a matter for the future.

Sir Antony Buck: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that his announcement constitutes a reorientation of American efforts in Europe, but that it in no way decouples their commitment to Europe and to the United Kingdom?

Mr. King: I confirm that. The proposal to station the Fl5Es at Lakenheath confirms the Americans' continuing intention to maintain a capability in Europe. We welcome that continuing commitment—albeit at lower levels, which reflect the new security situation—to NATO and to stationing forces in Europe.

Mrs. Ray Michie: I welcome the fact that the change reflects the new security arrangements. However, does the Secretary of State realise that it will have a significant impact on the economy of the Holy Loch and of the Cowal peninsula? Over the years, the Navy and the local people have built up good relations. I pay tribute to United states personnel for maintaining those relations, which is demonstrated by the fact that every year approximately 200 United States naval personnel marry local girls. That shows that many of them consider the area to be home.
The Cowal peninsula has been designated a fragile area by the Highlands and Islands development board. Many people in the hotel and bed-and-breakfast business—to say nothing of the 119 taxis that ply their trade in Dunoon —will be put out of work. Will the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State for Scotland give a commitment that they will come forward with financial assistance for the area, as they did at Dounreay? What is the future of Machrihanish airport?

Mr. King: I would want notice of the hon. Lady's final question. I am grateful for the responsible and sincere way in which she responded to what I recognise, in the


economic sense, must be disappointing news for her constituency and for those constituencies adjacent to it. I always try to be helpful, but I am not sure what I can do about the marriage prospects of so many girls in the Dunoon area. I take the point.
I pay tribute—and I know that the United States Government and the United States navy would also like to pay tribute—to the warm and friendly relations with the local people. The alliance has stood the world, NATO and Europe in such good stead. Personal relations locally play a big part in ensuring that the United States navy feels welcome. The navy will feel disappointed that it is leaving for other reasons. I take note of the hon. Lady's economic point.

Sir Hector Monro: I share the concern of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) about the effect of the closure at Holy Loch on the whole of the Clyde estuary. Do not the events in the Gulf and in eastern Europe, and the changes in this country, highlight the necessity for putting "Options for Change" on hold until the position is clarified, perhaps in a year's time, when we may look forward to greater civility and to easier decisions on Scottish defence facilities?

Mr. King: I know that my hon. Friend would not wish us to fossilise everything at this stage while we learn all possible lessons from the Gulf. There may be changes, economies and improvements that we can make which have nothing to do with the Gulf but which would be a sensible rationalisation. Part of the developments in "Options for Change" was an increased recognition of the importance of the reserves and of volunteer forces. My hon. Friend gives outstanding leadership to the Royal Air Force Volunteer Reserve, so he will know of its splendid contribution in the Gulf.

Mr. John McFall: Further to the comments of the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie), the economic implications of the reorientation of defence will have an adverse affect in our area. The area is poorly off at present, as the Secretary of State realises, and the Ministry of Defence has a responsibility there. For example, in my constituency 16 per cent. of the land is owned by the Ministry of Defence. Will the Secretary of State urge the Secretary of State for Scotland to meet the Members of Parliament who are involved so that we can examine the economic implications of the decisions?

Mr. King: I note the hon. Gentleman's comments and his perhaps tensions over the announcement, because he has genuinely not supported a nuclear presence in the area, yet we all recognise the economic benefits that it has brought and the problems that the announcement will pose for many of his constituents.
The heads on my left are nodding vigorously. I take it from that that the request for a meeting has been granted.

Sir Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the new deployment of the United States air force in this country affect the Americans' requirement for standby bases and, in particular, the future of Greenham Common in my constituency?

Mr. King: I have no comment to make on Greenham Common. As my hon. Friend knows, progress in the withdrawal of cruise missiles is continuing very satisfactorily. By May the last cruise missile will have left.

The proposal is that Upper Heyford should go on to a standby basis. One has certainly seen the advantage of that in the totally separate and different arrangements that can come from having facilities that can be available in time of need over RAF Lakenheath.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The "show us the flag" commitment to NATO apart, which I understand, what is the military role of the F15E aircraft?

Mr. King: It is a dual capable aircraft which can carry either conventional or nuclear bombs.

Mr. Bill Walker: Is my right hon. Friend aware that those of us who, for years, have supported our nuclear deterrent capability and have welcomed United States service men and their role in that military activity will be saddened that technical change has meant that they will leave the Holy Loch? We have always recognised that military bases in Scotland were substantial employers and were good for the local economy. We want no crocodile tears from Opposition Members who, for years, have campaigned for the closure of the bases.

Mr. King: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting clearly in the voice of Scotland the dilemma that many Opposition Members face. Some of them have faced it quite genuinely, but others less so.

Mr. Dick Douglas: Will the Secretary of State clarify his answer to the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) on the possible future use of Holy Loch, perhaps as a base for SSNs with cruise missiles? Does that exclude the possibility of its being used for United States Trident-type submarines in future? In terms of future possibilities for employment in Scotland, may we take it that the meeting with the Secretary of State for Scotland is a clear departure from asking market forces to solve such problems? May we expect similar initiatives in relation to Rosyth?

Mr. King: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's second question is no, but, within the sensible economic approach, my right hon. Friend will be anxious to see what can be done to help in the difficult circumstances. However, on the hon. Gentleman's first point, I am not ruling anything out, but I know of no proposals for a further base in the Holy Loch. I said that it might be used for periodic visits, but not as a base.

Mr. Nicholas Soames: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that many people will regard this as a disappointingly premature decision? Nevertheless, does he agree that the deployment of Polaris played a triumphant part in keeping the peace since 1945?

Mr. King: The nuclear deterrent has ensured the longest period of peace in Europe this century. It is in no way an abandonment of the deterrent. It is a recognition that the introduction of the Trident submarine means that the United States is able to deploy its deterrent without the need for a forward-operating base in the north-eastern Atlantic.

Mr. David Lambie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the majority of people in Scotland will be happy about the decision by the American Administration as it marks the end of a 30-year campaign to get rid of the Polaris submarine base? Thirty years ago, my wife and I and my young family took part in the many


demonstrations at Dunoon, on the Holy Loch, protesting against the decision to set up the Polaris base, which was supported by Harold Macmillan, the Prime Minister of a Conservative Government. Now that we have got rid of one American base in Scotland, when shall we get rid of the rest?

Mr. King: Many people, not only on this side of the House, may reflect that the continuing ability of the hon. Gentleman and his family to demonstrate in peace on such matters owes not a small amount to the continuing deterrence of NATO, which has held the peace in Europe all this time. The changes that I have announced today are not a departure from that policy. They mean that technical change and modernisation will enable the nuclear deterrent that has helped to keep the peace in Europe to help sustain that peace in future.

Mr. John Wilkinson: As this decision comes hard on the heels of the INF agreement and at a time of great international instability when there is hard evidence of circumvention of arms control agreements by the Soviets, will my right hon. Friend look long and hard at least at the European component of our alliance deterrent? The decision will mean a further reduction in the alliance's intermediate range nuclear capacity and we should look at least to an effective stand-off nuclear weapon for the Tornado.

Mr. King: My hon. Friend will recall that at the London summit the NATO leaders agreed that the alliance must maintain for the foreseeable future an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe and kept up to date where necessary. My announcement today is precisely an implementation of that. I know that my hon. Friend would be the first to agree that modernisation of the deterrent—the submarine and aircraft deployments reflect that clearly—is an important way of ensuring that we maintain the strength of Europe and the NATO defence of Europe.

Mr. John McWilliam: Is the Secretary of State aware that his announcement today raises enchanting spectres from our youth of our first visits to the Holy Loch when we were arrested on the pier and then acquitted because we had bought tickets? Does he agree that to fit the F15s, which are to be based in the United Kingdom, with TASMs would be a major change in the NATO capability facing the Soviet Union? Will he undertake to ensure that if they are so equipped a statement will be made to the House?

Mr. King: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman raises that. I thought that there was general support across the House for the NATO policy of keeping up to date an appropriate mix of nuclear and conventional forces based in Europe. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman departs from that, but I believe that it is a sane and sensible policy in the present uncertain state of the world.

Sir Geoffrey Johnson Smith: While my right hon. Friend's statement is warmly welcomed on this side of the House and, for that matter, on the other side of the House, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is growing anxiety, particularly among Conservative Members and in the United States, about the difficulties

which the United States has experienced in implementing CFE and, indeed, the continuing START nuclear talks? Is he further aware that there is strong evidence of circumvention in the Soviet Union and that there are increasing difficulties with verification? Can he reassure the House that the steps that he has announced have been taken in full knowledge of that deterioration of relations between the United States and the Soviet Union?

Mr. King: I take seriously the point made by my hon. Friend. We are worried about some of the evidence and the need for effective verification. The changes that I have announced will take place over a period. In the case of the submarines, there is an enhancement of capability; there is no reduction of capability. The much greater range of the Trident submarine simply makes unnecessary the use of a forward operating base. The situation in relation to the aircraft applies progressively until 1994 and obviously the United States will want to keep carefully under review its commitment to NATO against the background of the developing situation. But modernisation is important, and that issue is dealt with in the statement.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that his statement today may be only the first of many similar announcements to be made in the future under the twin influences of a reduction in east-west tension and technological advance in the sphere of defence procurement? Do not defence decisions of this kind underline the need to maintain and strengthen the political links between Europe and the United States?

Mr. King: People who unwisely thought that somehow NATO could be wound up and that there was no longer any need for United States-stationed forces in Europe have quieter voices now, bearing in mind the importance—including against the worrying background in the Soviet Union—of ensuring that we do not abandon the effective defence of NATO in a premature sense in what could be difficult circumstances. Therefore, I very much agree with the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although it is understandable that the American taxpayer should seek to carry less of NATO's burden and to achieve sensible savings through the modernisation of equipment, the Soviet Union continues to sustain, and in some cases even enlarge, overwhelming superiority in most categories of nuclear weapons and in a number of categories of conventional weapons, including submarines and most types of aircraft?

Mr. King: That is true and it draws out clearly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Sir G. Johnson Smith) concerning worry about verification and about what still remains a very substantial military capability.

Mr. Brian Wilson: As one who stood on Dunoon pier 30 years ago, may I ask the Secretary of State to accept my unqualified welcome for his announcement today? Will he look forward with me to the Holy Loch being returned to a purpose more consistent with its name? Does he recognise that during those 30 years the economy of the Holy Loch area has been completely skewered by the United States presence there, the area having been used and abused by the American navy for its own purposes? Is he further aware that other


employment opportunities there have been neglected because of the false economy that has been created around the American military presence? Will he give an assurance that assistance will be provided by the British and American Governments to restore a proper, stable economy to that part of Scotland?

Mr. King: I much preferred the account that was given by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) of the relationship between the local people and the United States navy in the use of the base—

Mr. Wilson: I come from there.

Mr. King: I am delighted to hear that the hon. Gentleman comes from the area, but I still preferred the account given by the hon. Lady. I do not know whether a campaign is starting on the Opposition Benches to prove how utterly futile and pointless it was to demonstrate 30 years ago. It did precisely nothing. How much more sensible it would have been to have left it to a sane and reasonable decision to be taken by the Government 30 years later, when the job had been done.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that I have called hon. Members whose constituencies are directly affected. If not, I shall certainly call those with a constituency interest. I appeal for brief and not repetitious questions.

Mr. James Paice: My right hon. Friend will be aware that Lakenheath is on the edge of my constituency and has a widespread effect on many parts of the area. The news he has announced today will be received with mixed feelings—with pleasure that it has been found possible to make the changes, but with concern about the effect on the local economy. Can he give more information about the changes at Lakenheath, particularly about the level of reduction in American personnel, civilian and service, remembering the effect that that will have on the economy of the area?

Mr. King: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern. I said that I could not give details today. I can only say that the changes will begin in 1992 and that it is intended that they will be completed by 1994. The present proposals will mean moving from one wing to slightly less than one wing at Lakenheath. Although there will be fewer aircraft there, I cannot advise my hon. Friend of the precise effect that that will have on the numbers involved. Now that the announcement has been made, I appreciate that further discussion will occur and that my hon. Friend will wish to be involved in that process.

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: Will the Minister explain in what circumstances the United States may want to send cruise missiles into Holy Loch if the base is closed? Will he describe in what circumstances he would think it fit for cruise missiles to visit Holy Loch—or have not his American partners told him yet?

Mr. King: I am not sure why the hon. Lady asked that question. I may have misunderstood the point made by the hon. Member for Clackmannan (Mr. O'Neill) but I know of no proposal to base anything in Holy Loch in future. I am unaware whether there may be periodic visits, but that is a possibility.

Mr. Stephen Day: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, while his announcement is welcome in general terms, it could have implications for the Government's defence review, "Options for Change"? Does he further agree that, as the review was instigated before the change in the Soviet policy towards the Baltic states and before the outbreak of the Gulf war, Conservative Members are concerned that the Government should seek to reflect that in any changes made?

Mr. King: I can give that assurance. I, of all people, am concerned about that because I saw at first hand some of the problems we faced when making our contribution to the Gulf. Any lessons that we have been, and are, learning will be taken into account when considering "Options for Change".

Mr. George Foulkes: I join my colleagues in welcoming the end of the menance in the Clyde, which will also be welcomed by the fishermen, who constantly find submarines bumping into their boats or caught in their nets. We now know that 30 years ago Harold Macmillan and his Cabinet wanted the site to be not at Holy Loch but at Loch Linnhe, in the north of Scotland. However, President Eisenhower successfully insisted that it should be sited at Holy Loch. Will the Secretary of State assure us that the relationship between the two Governments has changed in the past 30 years and that if there were to be a new facility the decision would be made by the United Kingdom Secretary of State for Defence and not by the United States Secretary of State for Defence?

Mr. King: I certainly give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I am interested in that bit of history, about which I was quite unaware. I am unable to compare the relative relationships between the Eisenhower and Bush Administrations and the British Government. The present relationship between the American and British Governments is extremely close and co-operative and we shall take as constructive an approach as possible.

Mr. Ian Bruce: My right hon. Friend knows that Portland is occasionally used for rest and recreation by American submarine crews visiting this country. Will the closure of Holy Loch increase the incidence of people coming to visit and the need to use the naval dockyard for emergency repairs to Trident submarines and others?

Mr. King: I cannot comment on that. I note my hon. Friend's interest and I know of his loyal support for Portland. I know that those visiting Portland will receive a warm welcome.

Mr. John Cartwright: Does the Secretary of state agree that what are likely to be continuing reductions in the United States force levels underline the case for Europe to seek a closer defence co-operation and not to waste time chasing the moonbeam of a European defence force?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman's question takes us a little wider, but it emphasises that while the changes are being made by the United States, that country is determined to maintain and modernise its contribution of stationed forces in Europe. That element of the announcement will be widely welcomed.

Mr. Tam Dalyell: As the F15Es are being based at Lincoln, may we have the clear assurance that the legally significant assurances given by our country in 1978 that a nuclear state would never attack a non-nuclear state are still confirmed? Will the Secretary of State say something about the dual key system that is apparently still in operation, whereby the Americans cannot use nuclear weapons without the clear understanding of No. 10 Downing street?

Mr. King: That is precisely the point, and I am glad that the hon. Gentleman raised it. On 12 May 1983, my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister said:
The effect of the understandings and the arrangements for implementing them is that no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister."—[Official Report, 12 May 1983; Vol. 42, c. 433.]

Mr. John D. Taylor: Will the Secretary of State advise the House of the estimated loss of jobs arising from the closure? As the American submarines have been the cause of many serious accidents and damage to fishing boats from Northern Ireland in the Irish sea, will the right hon. Gentleman, in the last few months of the operation of the American submarines, make a further request to the authorities to ensure better co-operation with fishing fleet in the Irish sea so that there are no further accidents in the last remaining months?

Mr. King: I take it that the right hon. Gentleman is referring to the closure of the base at Holy Loch which will result in the loss of 80 full-time United States-employed United Kingdom civilian jobs, 65 part-time jobs and about 20 Ministry of Defence civilian jobs, mainly with the Ministry of Defence police. The serious economic consequences will result from the departure of some 2,000 American employees with some 1,600 dependants. The loss of economic benefits to the local community has been estimate at about $50 million. That is a significant matter. The closure will lead to a reduction of submarine traffic in the Irish sea.

Mr. Jimmy Wray: Do the British and United States Treasuries have contingency plans? The Secretary of State has said nothing about finance. What are his plans?

Mr. King: I referred in my statement to the particular interests of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, who is aware of these matters, to which he is giving particular attention. I also referred to the fact that a number of people involved are United States employees and the United States will wish to treat with them as fairly as possible. The United States is conscious of the good relations that have existed between them and it is grateful for that. It is conscious of the economic consequences that will flow from the decisions and is anxious to see how it can help in that respect.

Mr. Thomas Graham: My constituency is one of those that faces on to Holy Loch, and I can assure the Secretary of State that there will be much disappointment at the closure of the base and its terrible economic consequences on the surrounding areas. Others will be delighted to see the closure of the base for many reasons, one of which is that the River Clyde was once famous for its holidaymakers, and I am convinced that once the base has closed, and if the Government take

an urgent look at the problems of the Clyde, thousands of people may once again return to spend their money in one of the most beautiful parts of the world, and the Americans will follow them. Will the Secretary of State urgently meet his colleagues in Scotland to discuss the economic crisis which will follow the closure of the base?

Mr. King: Having lived and worked in that area, and knowing the Clyde well, I agree with everything that the hon. Gentleman has said about the beauty of the area and its potential for tourist development. The closure of the base has serious economic implications and I imagine that the people involved will have a lot of sympathy for the views expressed by the hon. Gentleman than with those expressed by the hon. Member for Cunninghame, North (Mr. Wilson), who did not seem to care whether they had a job or not.

Mr. Harry Ewing: Is the Secretary of State aware that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) did not say that good relations were built up—she said that people got married? The Secretary of State seems to be confused in his thinking. Can he explain to a simple soul like me, who 30 years ago was too young to stand on the pier, why he feels that it is so important to keep nuclear weapons in Britain to secure the peace in Europe and, conversely, so important to get rid of them in the middle east to secure the peace in the middle east?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that the Soviet Union possesses a massive nuclear arsenal. In the judgment of many—and I personally believe this very strongly—peace has been kept for the longest period this century in Europe because of the existence of the nuclear deterrent. No doubt I shall have an opportunity to explain this point at greater length to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ron Brown: The Secretary of State should come clean. The withdrawal of American forces from Holy Loch has nothing to do with the peaceful intentions of the American ruling class. It is all to do with economics, and with the fact that America is the biggest debtor country in the world. That has been made clear by George Bush's budget. Can we help him along the way? Can we get George Bush on his nuclear bike so that all American forces in Britain are withdrawn? That is the will of the British people and the Secretary of State can put that to the test by holding a referendum. The peace movement is growing throughout the country and it will develop to challenge the Government—and even to challenge the Labour party.

Mr. King: I am interested that the hon. Gentleman invites me to come clean. For all the serious economic problems that America faces—and there is no doubt about its deficit—when it is challenged, and when the American people have a duty and a responsibility to take action, they do not hesitate. That is clear from my statement today. The Americans are not turning their back on Europe. They are not abandoning their NATO commitments. They are modernising their forces and continuing to honour their commitment to NATO and to the defence of Europe.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Does the Secretary of State accept that the Government have belatedly caught up with the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament and have accepted their arguments, even if it is rather late in the day? Does he agree that we must move to get rid of other


nuclear weapons? As a matter of interest, do the Government have a right of veto over the use of United States nuclear capable planes based at Upper Heyford and Lakenheath? Has the agreement made in October 1951 between President Truman and Prime Minister Attlee—that there would be joint decision-making only in the light of prevailing circumstances—been altered? Is there a specific agreement giving a right of veto? If so, will the Secretary of State direct me to it?

Mr. King: It would be extraordinarily silly of the hon. Gentleman to view my statement today as a victory for those who protested against a nuclear base at Holy Loch. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that it is the intention of the United States to maintain its missile submarines and nuclear deterrent. It happens that the new Trident submarines have a much bigger range, and do not need a forward operating base in the eastern Atlantic.
The precise statement that I made to the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) also answers the hon. Gentleman's question. I will read it again. It confirms that
no nuclear weapon would be fired or launched from British territory without the agreement of the British Prime Minister.
I trust that the hon. Gentleman does not want to challenge that, and that he thinks it is right. I give that assurance to the House.

Point of Order

Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your permission, Mr. Speaker, to raise, under Standing Order No. 20, the subject of the United Nations Secretary-General distancing himself from the coalition?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member knows that I cannot grant the application that he wants to make today. I know that he feels strongly about the matter in question, but I must protect the spirit of the rules that cover Standing Order No. 20 applications. If the procedure is abused, it will put in jeopardy a prized opportunity for Back Benchers to raise legitimate requests for an emergency debate in prime time.
I remind the House of what I have said in the past. The right to make a three-minute submission to me on a new and urgent matter at 3.30 pm represents a valuable and very important opportunity for Back-Bench Members. I am anxious that it should not be devalued or threatened, as might be the case if the procedure were to be abused. I hope that I shall always have the support of the House in declining to hear applications that do not fall into that category.

BILL PRESENTED

FOOTBALL (OFFENCES)

Sir John Wheeler, supported by Mr. David Ashby, Mr. Joseph Ashton, Mr. Gerald Bermingham, Dame Janet Fookes, Mr. Roger Gale, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Alan Meale, Mr. Keith Vaz, Dr. Mike Woodcock and Mr. Tom Pendry, presented a Bill to define offences and prescribe penalties in respect of certain conduct at football matches; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 72.]

Domestic Lettings

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the law to relax certain requirements upon a private householder taking in not more than two lodgers, in respect of taxation, the unified business rate, and the provisions of the Rent Acts; and for connected purposes.
My Bill will concern itself with small domestic lettings and will tackle the pressing problem of homelessness, which is a blot on our society. Today in The Times a letter from Shelter claims that homelessness is
the result of too little affordable rented accommodation.
The tragedy to my mind is that homelessness exists while there is a surfeit of accommodation. There is plenty of accommodation in private houses, but people will not rent it out. My proposal would unlock this housing so that homeless people could come in from the cold.
There are many reasons why people find themselves homeless. A common reason is that young people who have always wanted to leave home and set up on their own cannot find anywhere to live nowadays. Once upon a time one could look in any local newspaper, or in the local sweet shop, and see lots of advertisements for bedsits or furnished flats to let. People with rooms to spare were willing to let them for a modest sum. There was much competition, which kept prices down. Sometimes letting helped to pay the landlord's mortgage or rent. Sometimes the family had left home and people felt that they would like a little company. Many a lonely young person, coming to the city, found a surrogate mother in the company of a friendly landlady—someone to keep an eye on him, and someone to come home to in the evening and to tell about the events of the day.
The landlord or the landlady was rarely too worried about getting a lot of money in advance. Often they would take people in for a week's rent only and they rarely wanted references. They would judge people at face value and let them into their homes. If the arrangements did not work out they would give notice, but that was not a tragedy because there was always somewhere else just down the road where one could find alternative accommodation.
Tenants were not harmed by that liberal, liberated system. That is what happens when there is a free market in any service—there is always a supply to meet demand.
Even young couples, after they got married, frequently started married life in a bedsit or in a furnished flat. It enabled them to save money and build up the capital to buy a place of their own.
Something has happened which has destroyed people's willingness to let parts of their houses. The Rent Acts are still a spectre facing people who rent out homes, as is the prospect of the taxman breathing down their necks wanting part of the rent, or of complicated accounts to reduce the amount of liability, or of the local town hall and the prospect of being re-rated.
I pay tribute to the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Chope) who, when he was Minister for housing, liberated furnished lettings, especially rooms to let, and went a long way towards making the landlord more comfortable. Nowadays, if a landlord has to give notice to a tenant in a private household, he does not have to go to the county court, but can simply serve notice and the tenant has to go. If a


landlord has fewer than six lodgers, he is not liable to be re-rated as a boarding house. Many liberal measures have been introduced, but the popular terror still exists in the public's mind about being a landlord.
Instead of tackling the causes, we tend to spend more money on providing hostel or bed-and-breakfast accommodation, at enormous expense to the taxpayer.
I talked to many homeless people in the Westminster area when I was a member of Westminster city council and deputy chairman of the housing committee. When I asked people what they wanted, they told me that they did not want a room in a hostel, however nice it might be. They wanted a room in a home—somewhere to leave their belongings, an address, somewhere where they could lock the door and could call home. That is what we should be aiming for, rather than providing more hostel accommodation. The Government are spending £5 million a week on many of those cold and friendless alternatives to homes in the private rented sector.
Although Ministers agree privately that what we are up to is a kind of madness, we are still afraid to tackle the cause of the blockage. I believe that the cause is the caricature of the private landlord as a Rachman—a caricature which the Labour party always drags out as a means of boosting public housing, public spending and public control. The other bogeyman for the would-be landlord is the Treasury, which regards letting rooms as a black economy activity, and wants every last farthing that it can get out of the rent.
The Department has already done a great deal to liberate the housing sector. I want it to go a step further and stand up for homeless people and against the bullyragging nonsense that we hear from the Labour party. I want it to reassure people that if they let their accommodation, they will receive a bonus. They could take in up to two lodgers and make £100 in rent—which is none the less much less than we pay for a hostel or bed-and-breakfast places. If the arrangement did not work out, landlords could part company with their tenants—as they can now—without having to go through the awful trauma of rent tribunals and county courts.
I am sure that that would liberate an enormous amount of housing, without adding a penny to the taxpayer's bill. Moreover, it would provide a surrogate, or alternative, for the young, the not-so-favourably disposed, the unemployed and the friendless, in a warm home where they would receive the support and company that they probably expected originally from their own families.

Mr. Michael Spicer: I oppose the Bill presented by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman).
My hon. Friend's heart is, of course, in the right place; the problem is that her Bill has been so narrowly drafted that it does not, in my view, adequately address the problem that she has so properly brought to our notice. In my hon. Friend's immortal words, her aim is to bring lodgers back to the bosom of the landlady. That is a laudable aim. We know exactly what my hon. Friend means and exactly what she wants: she wants, as she said, to reduce the pressure on housing, especially for single

people. She wants to do that by giving a boost to private renting, which always used to be a major source of accommodation—especially for single people.
I fear—and I know that my hon. Friend shares my view—that the problems of private renting go much deeper and are much more profound than the difficulties faced by those wishing to find private shared accommodation, although their difficulties are, of course, an inextricable part of the wider problem. Private renting in this country—unlike private renting in any other country in the western world—has collapsed. In the 1950s it represented about 50 per cent. of all accommodation; today it represents about 7 per cent. At the same time, there are about 600,000 empty private sector houses, as my hon. Friend pointed out. Many are not rented out because their owners are literally terrified of the consequences of doing so.
Thirty years of socialist denigration of the landlord and landlady has taken its toll. As a result, the potential penalties of renting out their property, or one room of it, are considered by most people far to outweigh the meagre rewards. My hon. Friend stressed that, and the implications for the use of the national housing stock are extremely serious. If even one third of the empty private sector housing were put out for rent many of the present pressures on housing would be removed without a single new building.
I know that in the current mood, we are not really allowed to be confrontational and far be it from me to disturb the tranquillity of the House, but I should like to make one small, innocent, well-meaning observation about the socialist party's policy towards private renting. Its programme, now printed formally in its policy documents, of reintroducing total security of tenure to new as well as to old lodgings, and presumably thus to shared lodgings, would, if implemented, finally kill the private rented sector stone dead with or without the Bill which my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay has brought before the House today.
Labour's policy is already acting as a serious deterrent to new landlords coming forward and it is directly and detrimentally affecting the position of thousands of people looking for homes.
I should have liked to see in my hon. Friend's Bill, with all its excellent intentions for the provision of extra accommodation, some mention of something that she herself has championed in recent years—the future deregulation of tenancies. We should at least ensure that people who succeed to existing regulated tenancies should do so through contracts freely entered into by them and their landlords, as is the case now for assured tenancies and for shortholds. It is also necessary to treat the operations of landlords for tax purposes in the same way as any other business would be. Their capital expenditure should certainly benefit from roll-over rules. I believe that it would have been better if my hon. Friend's Bill had addressed that point.
My hon. Friend has done the House a great service by raising the matter of privately rented accommodation. I want her to reapply her genius to the wider context in which lodging must be seen, take this Bill away and bring back an amended version, perhaps more along the lines of the one that she presented to the House some months ago.

Mr. Speaker: The Question is that the hon. Lady be given leave to bring in the Bill. Those in favour say aye; to


the contrary no. The hon. Member who has spoken against the Bill must follow his objection by recording a no call. I think that the ayes have it.

Question agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Who will prepare and bring in the Bill?

Mrs. Gorman: Mr. David Shaw, Sir Marcus Fox, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Michael Spicer, Mr. Barry Field, Mrs. Rosie Barnes and myself, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that it is possible for the hon. Member who has just opposed the Bill to be also listed as a sponsor of the Bill. Perhaps his name could be deleted.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Teresa Gorman, Mr. David Shaw, Sir Marcus Fox, Mrs. Maureen Hicks, Mr. Christopher Gill, Mr. James Pawsey, Mr. John Greenway, Mr. Barry Field and Mrs. Rosie Barnes.

DOMESTIC LETTINGS

Mrs. Teresa Gorman accordingly presented a Bill to amend the law to relax certain requirements upon a private householder taking in not more than two lodgers, in respect of taxation, the unified business rate, and the provisions of the Rent Acts; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 February and to be printed. [Bill 40.]

Mr. David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You have often referred to the need to protect our procedure against abuse. Today we have had the introduction of a ten-minute Bill. Normally, those who object do so out of conviction, because they totally oppose what the hon. Member presenting the Bill is trying to do. Not in all cases, but normally, as you know, the opposition comes from the other side. The hon. Gentleman who opposed the Bill today obviously had no real conviction. That was shown by the fact that his name was included as a supporter of the Bill.
I put it to you, Mr. Speaker, that what we have witnessed is a mockery and a denial of the opportunity for Opposition Members to oppose the Bill introduced by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman). That mockery of our procedure should not be repeated.

Mr. Speaker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that it should not be repeated. The purpose of speaking against a Bill is to raise objections, not to support a Bill that has been put before the House. [Interruption.] I do not know that the hon. Member for Worcestershire, South (Mr. Spicer) was doing that today. It is not an opportunity to have a second bite at a ten-minute motion. Moreover, interruptions are not allowed during proceedings on a ten-minute Bill. The procedure should be kept pure. In future, we should proceed as the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) suggests.

Orders of the Day — Statutory Sick Pay Bill

Lords amendments considered.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is for the convenience of the House that all the Lords amendments should be considered together.

The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): I share your understanding, Mr. Speaker, that it would seem to be for the convenience of the House that all the Lords amendments should be discussed together, but in the interests of the rules of procedure perhaps I should move formally that the House agrees with Lords amendment No. 1.

Clause 1

REDUCTION IN THE AMOUNTS RECOVERABLE BY EMPLOYERS WHO HAVE PAID STATUTORY SICK PAY

Lords amendment: No. 1, in page 1, line 12, leave out ""so paid"" and insert ""by making""

Mr. Newton: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the remaining Lords amendments.

Mr. Newton: This small Government amendment is designed to pave the way for others. It was accepted in another place, but it does not form the major focus of our debate. I shall seek to discuss the issues raised by all the amendments, including the Government amendments to one of the Lords amendments.
In setting the case before the House, it is sensible for me to remind hon. Members that the Bill deals with only two aspects of a much wider package of changes, some of which will come before the House in other ways. However, they will need to be discussed and considered as a whole. I am sure that that will seem to be a sensible procedure both to the Opposition and to my hon. Friends.
The Bill proposes to reduce the rate of reimbursement for employers' payments of statutory sick pay from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. It also—this is a small matter but it should at least be noted—ends the arrangements whereby employers are able to claim reimbursement of the national insurance contributions paid on statutory sick pay. That arrangement was introduced only in 1985 after the introduction of statutory sick pay and has not worked very well in practice. Some 25 per cent. of the compensation due under that heading does not appear to be claimed, despite the various efforts which have been made to draw it to the attention of employers.
Alongside the proposals in the Bill, we have also proposed to leave the higher rate of statutory sick pay unaltered, at £52·50 per week, while increasing the lower rate from £39·25 to £43·50 and to extend the earnings bands to which the lower rate applies.
Another point—perhaps the most important from the point of view of the balance of our debate, and one that has not been given its due weight in much that has been said and written on these matters in recent weeks—is that


we have proposed a significant reduction in the national insurance contributions payable by employers, weighted towards giving greater help in particular to the employers of those who are less well paid, who tend disproportionately to be small employers. We shall undoubtedly return to that point.
Taking all three elements together, we have what may broadly be described as about £350 million on one side of the account—mostly through reduced expenditure—and £250 million on the other side, in the form of reduced employers' contribution rates, leading to a net overall effect for employers of around £100 million.
To put that figure in context, I should make two main points. First, total labour costs in our economy are about £300 billion. Thus, the £100 million represents about 0·03 per cent.—less than one twentieth of 1 per cent. of the labour costs of industry as a whole.
The second is a rather wider point—that this very limited change should be seen in the light of trends well established over many years. Support for those in employment who are sick for short periods has, as a matter of experience and observation, moved increasingly from being something for which the state alone has been responsible to being a partnership between the state and employers, with the latter taking an increasingly important share.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My right hon. Friend has stated the costs as percentages of employers' overall costs. Another way of putting it is to say that the average cost to an employer is only £5 per annum per employee. Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is surprising that, as the cost is so low, there has been so much opposition to the Bill? Does not the director of the CBI seem to be arguing about mere bantam feed?

Mr. Newton: I have not done precisely the calculation that appears to underlie my hon. Friend's point, but I think that its basic thrust is right. Of course, one must allow for the fact that a significant number of employees—I am thinking, in particular, of part-time employees who deliberately keep their earnings below the lower limit—will not qualify for statutory sick pay at all. Perhaps that affects my hon. Friend's figures to a small extent.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: We should be very careful about using averages. As the incidence is unequal, the burden on companies will be disproportionate. That is the essence of the Bill and of the opposition to it.

Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend is seeking to lead me on. I promise that it will not be long before I come to discuss the small employers, who, obviously, are less able to be certain that the averages will apply to them. On the whole, it is true that the larger a firm or undertaking, the more likely it is that the averages will apply in its case. I understand well that that is the cause of some of the concern about small employers that has led to a number of the proposed amendments. At an earlier stage the Government gave a clear-cut undertaking that we would try to meet the concern expressed on behalf of small employers about averages not applying to them. I am seeking, with some amendments to the Lords amendments, to fulfil that undertaking.

Sir Robert McCrindle: Before the Secretary of State moves on to what I know will be the kernel of the debate—the effects of these measures on small companies—will he take on board the fact that some large companies, for which, I understand, there may be less sympathy, are faced with a very considerable additional bill? I am told that Marks and Spencer will have to pay £600,000 extra. I think it is fair to say that there was a clear implication that Government reimbursement of 100 per cent. of the cost was the basis on which the original scheme was introduced. Does not my right hon. Friend think that it would be wise to say just a few words about the movement away from that basic principle, which caused some of us to support the original scheme some years ago?

Mr. Newton: I am very happy to say a few words about that matter. Perhaps I should preface my remarks by saying that a point along the lines of that which my hon. Friend has just raised was made by a number of people in business. Naturally, as a consequence, I have had a very careful search made of everything that was said in the House and of any other traceable comments that were made when these proposals were being discussed very nearly a decade ago. I have been quite unable to find any commitment of the kind that my hon. Friend implies existed. Moreover, during that decade there have been two changes of Parliament.
It is well understood that Governments must take a new look at circumstances as they change. Two of the changes in circumstances to which I was about to refer are the spread of occupational sick pay schemes and the rising pressure of other demands. My hon. Friend is noted for his support for demands for expenditure on forms of social security which employers cannot possibly be expected to provide.

Mr. Michael Meacher: The Secretary of State says that he has checked the sources of this commitment. Has he examined the proceedings of the Conservative party conference? Is he aware that on 15 October 1981 the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler), his predecessor, gave a clear and unequivocal commitment that there would be 100 per cent. reimbursement? As the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) said, that was the basis on which the original scheme was introduced. Is he unaware of that, or is the Conservative party conference not a serious public body?

Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend's remarks were directed to the outcome of the negotiations on the original statutory sick pay scheme. My noble Friend Lord Jenkin, who was responsible for most of the negotiations prior to the introduction of SSP, has not suggested any express or implied commitment that there would never be a stage at which, regardless of developments surrounding occupational sick pay schemes or other demands on the social security system, a future Government would consider the balance of provision. Indeed, it would not have been possible to make such a meaningful commitment that would stand for ever.

Mr. Frank Field: Is not the Secretary of State trying to confuse two issues to his own advantage—first, whether a commitment was given and where it was given and, secondly, whether events have moved on since and whether other developments have overridden the


original commitment? Will the right hon. Gentleman answer the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) put to him? Was that commitment given to the Conservative party conference?

Mr. Newton: I have already answered the point made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I cannot add to what I have said.

Mr. Frank Field: Yes or no.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman asked whether there had been developments in the intervening period. One of the developments, to which I have referred several times, has been the continuing growth of occupational sick pay schemes. The latest survey in 1988 showed that they are used by employers responsible for more than 90 per cent. of the work force. At the same time—the hon. Member for Oldham, West has tended, not to disguise, that would be unfair, but not to acknowledge this point significantly clearly—there has been particularly rapid growth in occupational sick pay schemes for manual workers. The old caricature was that staff had occupational sick pay schemes but manual workers were left to cope for themselves. There has been a significant change in that respect since the mid 1970s.

Ms. Clare Short: I wish to take the Secretary of State back to the point made by the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham), who claimed that the cost to employers is small because although there is a drop in reimbursement from 100 per cent. to 80 per cent. there is an offsetting cut in national insurance. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that that is a one-off and that there is no promise for future years? This is an insidious proposal which, in time, will cost employers more and more. Will he put that on the record?

Mr. Newton: I do not see how it can cost more. Contribution rates are calculated as a percentage of earnings. As earnings rise, the value of the reductions in national insurance contributions will rise. I am not in a position to speculate about decisions on future rates of statutory sick pay, or on what employers would do if they chose to go further in the development of occupational sick pay schemes. The Bill seeks to fix a proportion of the amount of statutory sick pay which employers would be expected to shoulder for themselves rather than pass on to the state and a reduction in national insurance contributions, which, as long as percentage rates of contributions remain unchanged, will rise in value to employers with the natural growth in earnings. I hope that that is reasonably clear.

Mr. Allen McKay: Employers' organisations calculate that it will cost employers £100 million to implement the scheme. Is the Secretary of State saying that that is untrue?

Mr. Newton: On the contrary. A fairly substantial paragraph in my speech, which I probably read some minutes ago because I willingly accepted several interventions, related that to the total of employers' labour costs in the economy. There is roughly a £100 million gap between one side of the account and the other. That is equivalent to less than one twentieth of 1 per cent. of labour costs in the economy.

Mr. Paul Flynn: The Minister has repeated the claim that was made in the last debate that 91 per cent. of the work force are covered by occupational pension schemes. The IFF Research Ltd. report says something quite different—that 91 per cent. of employers have sick pay schemes that cover some employees in some circumstances. That is all, and the percentage covered is nearer 48 per cent. or 50 per cent.

Mr. Newton: I think that my remarks were accurate and reflected what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Ms. Short: The Secretary of State is being economical with the truth.

Mr. Newton: If the hon. Lady, from a sedentary position, is accusing me of being economical with the truth I shall do my best to restrain what would normally he my natural irritation.
Some of the points towards which the hon. Member for Newport, West (Mr. Flynn) seems to be edging run the risk of being somewhat misleading. Of course there are exclusions from occupational sick pay schemes, but they are not, on the whole, exclusions of the old-fashioned gentleman versus players kind. There is increasing coverage of those in manual occupations. The exclusions from occupational sick pay schemes usually relate to a brief period at the start of a new job. There may be a qualifying rule that an employee must be with the firm three or six months before qualifying. That is not unreasonable, and as a matter of established record people tend to experience little sickness in the early months of a new job.
The other main exclusion is part-time employees. The Opposition have tended to place too much weight on this point—I can see where their argument is leading—because, by and large, the earnings of part-time employees qualify them only for the lower rate of statutory sick pay, which is being fully uprated and which was fully uprated last year. If I get the drift of where the hon. Member for Newport, West is seeking to take me, which is a bit aside of the main thrust of the debate, he will see that I do not really agree with what he is trying to say.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: My hon. Friend seems to he linking the reduction in national insurance contributions with the statutory sick pay proposal. As I understand what my right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People said in earlier discussions, there is no link: they stand independently of each other. It is therefore misleading of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to link them together as though it is a cost reduction. He might just as well cite those who have saved on the uniform business rate as being better able to make a payment on a different account. That link is misleading.

Mr. Newton: That is a little unfair of my hon. Friend., I have made it quite clear on this and on several other occasions that distinct judgments must be made. The Bill does not cover national insurance contributions. The House will be invited to discuss a national contributions order in due course. The judgment that I made on what it is sensible to do in respect of SSP—this should already he clear—was informed by a parallel judgment that I had made about what I could do for employers on national insurance contributions. That was a perfectly sensible way for me to have approached the matter, and one which most hon. Members would support.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: We acknowledge the difficult task which my right hon. Friend has in trying to juggle the social security budget, particularly in dealing with the Treasury. That is well understood. Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not simply the additional cost about which my constituents are concerned but the fact that, when statutory sick pay was introduced, they were required to administer what was essentially a Government system on behalf of the Government, and that that imposed burdens on industry? Had they been told then that they would not get 100 per cent. reimbursement, I suspect that their answer would have been, "You can stuff your scheme and do it yourselves."

Mr. Newton: This is another area about which there has been prolonged argument. I have already referred to the rather strange and not particularly effective arrangement for compensation for national insurance contributions paid on SSP itself. That is the nearest that anyone has ever come to compensating employers directly for their administration of the scheme. My hon. Friend will find that at the outset there was not any form of direct compensation. That was one of the points at issue. In retrospect, the majority of employers have found the SSP scheme easier to administer than they had originally expected. All the evidence is that it is now generally working well, with relatively little burden for employers. I do not seek to say this in a bland way, but in some respects what I am proposing, with the elimination of the rather strange compensation for the NICs bit of the scheme, will make it simpler than it is at present.

Mr. Michael Grylls: As I have said before to my right hon. Friend, it seems an extraordinary time to introduce added burdens for business, and above all for small business. My right hon. Friend will be able to draw away some of the criticism if he can tell us what the net effect will be on a firm with five or six employees, on average earnings, if one employee is off sick for six months. Will there be a net added cost to the firm, or will it gain? There is concern about the danger of added cost to a very small firm. If my right hon. Friend can assure the House that the new proposals sort out that problem, he will have answered quite a lot of criticism.

Mr. Newton: I shall be coming in a few moments to the case of small firms, both of the kind mentioned by my hon. Friend and others. He has referred to an employee being sick for six months. The main purpose of a significant concession in one of the rather complex Government amendments, relating back to an earlier amendment in another place, is to provide that small employers, defined on a fairly generous basis, can go back to 100 per cent. reimbursement in respect of any employee who is sick for more than six weeks. That is a significant end-stop safeguard for exactly the kind of problem that my hon. Friend has raised.

Mr. James Wallace: The Secretary of State has introduced a complex Government amendment referring to six weeks. Can he give us an insight into Government thinking on this? My understanding is that all the discussions in another place were based on studies which showed that the average length of sickness was three weeks. It seems that the period of six weeks has been plucked out of the air without any

principle behind it. If the Secretary of State is making a serious attempt to be helpful to small businesses, why does he not make the period three weeks?

Mr. Newton: In a nutshell, the position is that quite a number of small businesses will still be in pocket overall as a result of my proposals, because the national insurance contribution rate reductions have been geared especially to smaller employers, via being geared to lower paid employees. There will still be a large number of employers who will be better off on a straightforward calculation of the balance between the extra SSP which they have to pay and the reduced contributions from which they benefit, even up to twice average sickness, which would be one employee being sick for six weeks in the case which the hon. Gentleman seems to have in mind. We have chosen a number of weeks which we think will safeguard those employers who might otherwise be affected by rates of sickness significantly above average. I hope that I will be able to make the point clearer later in my speech.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that sickness management is an employer responsibility, that the Government have gone far enough in offering assistance to employers to look after the sickness management of employees, that any responsible employer already takes care of sickness management and that more employers should do so? I support the Bill.

Mr. Newton: That point has been made by a number of commentators, including most recently The Times in an editorial today, and the Financial Times in an editorial a week or two ago; certainly the point should not be overlooked in the argument. Indeed, I find it mildly ironic that the CBI has published a survey suggesting that British industry is cost many billions a year by absenteeism and pointing to the more determined methods to keep absenteeism under control which are used in some other countries. I have not sought to put great weight on that argument, and I do not want to mislead my hon. Friends or anybody else. There may be some force in it but it is not the reason for the proposals being brought before the House, and I do not pretend that it is.
I want to come briefly, I hope—otherwise there will be no opportunity for anyone else to speak—to the major reason why the proposals have been brought before the House. As I have said, against the background of the continued expansion of occupational sick pay schemes, not least into the manual work force, we felt that it was right to make a limited further adjustment in the balance of provision as between the state and employers. I must underline that point. We have taken account of the many understandable demands pressed upon the social security budget for purposes for which employers certainly cannot be expected to provide—for example, the less well-off pensioners for whom I found nearly another £100 million in the uprating, following £200 million in the form of extra premiums in October 1989,for those who need help in residential care or nursing homes, for whom the uprating statement brought nearly another £250 million, and for those who are long-term sick and disabled. Certainly there has been a very wide welcome for the measures which I was able to announce to help precisely those groups and, indeed, for the earlier announcement of major improvements in disability benefits worth some £300 million, which the House will debate on Thursday.

Mr. Tony Speller: No one can disagree with the wish of my right hon. Friend to help the disadvantaged. But why does he do that by disadvantaging small business? That is where I do not see the logic.

Mr. Newton: I am coming to small business. I think my hon. Friend will find that many small businesses are on balance advantaged rather than disadvantaged by the proposals which I have brought before the House.
I seek to conclude this part of my speech by saying simply—this is directly related to the point which my hon. Friend has raised—that the first question the House must address in considering the amendments is whether, in relation to the improvements in social security which we are making, which are worth many hundreds of millions of pounds for purposes commanding universal support, which have been pressed on me by many of my hon. Friends and by many Opposition Members, and on which I am constantly pressed to go further, it is reasonable to ask for a modest contribution from industry amounting to a small fraction of the improvements and amounting to less than one twentieth of 1 per cent. of their labour costs. The purpose of the main Lords amendment—amending 80 per cent. to 91 per cent.—is to eliminate even that very small contribution from employers to the improvements in social security to which I have referred. It is not realistic for that to be the position and I cannot, therefore, advise the House to accept Lords amendment No. 3.

5 pm

Sir Robert McCrindle: I have listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend has said in response to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). Is he telling us that as we evaluate the desirable advances in social services provision—over which he has presided and for which I give him full credit —we must offset against that the possibility that employers, whether small or large, will have to make some contribution? Should we be wise to assume that it is no longer correct to take as sacrosanct other schemes, such as statutory maternity pay? Is my right hon. Friend telling us that an occasion may arise when, as he is doing today with statutory sick pay, he may find it necessary to make the employer additionally responsible for the maternity scheme, if that is the price that we have to pay for improving social benefits?

Mr. Newton: There are two separate points in my hon. Friend's intervention. If significant improvements in social security, or in any other form of spending on welfare or for other purposes, are undertaken, there is no way in which employers collectively—industry as a whole—can be insulated from the effects. The costs will have to fall somewhere. If the hon. Member for Oldham, West were allowed the chance—and we all devoutly hope that he will not be—he would raise the overall rate of employers' national insurance contribution, he would raise the rate of corporation tax and he would almost certainly raise the rate of income tax in a way that would cause a great deal more difficulty to many small businesses than any of my proposals in the Bill.

Mr. Meacher: I did not think that I needed to make this point to the House. However, what the Secretary of State has just said is wholly groundless. There is not a single shred of evidence in anything that I have ever said or

written that would justify his comment. If that is the only basis on which he can justify these impositions on small businesses, it shows his arguments totally lack support.

Mr. Newton: Only this weekend, I saw in one of the Sunday newspapers a reiteration by one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues who has recently joined the Opposition Front Bench of what purported to be a Labour promise to pay additional pensions. Would the hon. Gentleman like to say how that will be paid for?

Mr. Meacher: That question is wholly irrelevant to our discussion today. But as the right hon. Gentleman has raised it, I will answer. We made it perfectly clear in our policy document—there was no great revelation in a Sunday newspaper—that, unlike the Government, we believe that older pensioners who are aged over 75 or 80 are completely without extra support, bearing in mind the way that the Government have cut the earnings relation when uprating pensions. We believe that those older pensioners need extra assistance. We intend to provide that, partly through the state earnings-related pension scheme and, if necessary, through some additional pension.

Mr. Newton: I may have evaded one or two questions in my time, but I have never heard a question so wholly and hopelessly evaded in response to an entirely reasonable request. If one makes promises of several billion pounds of additional expenditure from the national insurance fund—

Mr. Meacher: No.

Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman seems to be going round the country—and some of his hon. Friends certainly are—promising several pounds a week extra to 10 million pensioners. If he can explain how he will fund that without a major increase in national insurance contributions, either at the expense of employees or, far more likely, at the expense of employers, I should be happy to listen. The point that I want to make to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir R. McCrindle) is that none of that could be cost free. I do not want to turn this debate into a wrangle with the Opposition. However, I must make the point that in one form or another, the business community and individuals, according to the balance of judgment that particular Governments take, would have to find the cost of improvements to social security.
I do not ask my hon. Friends to say that they think that we have got the balance of judgment right in everything that we have done over the past 10 years, but I ask them —and I address this especially to my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who has a commendable track record in urging various improvements—to accept that it is difficult for the Secretary of State for Social Security to make all the improvements and then not to receive support for some of the ways in which one has to find room to manoeuvre to make them. I ask for understanding at least in that respect and I suspect that I have it from my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar, who is not only honourable, but an old friend from Essex in many other ways.

Ms. Short: But not Essex man?

Mr. Newton: The phrase "Essex man" had not come into my mind either as a description of myself or of my hon. Friend, but it cannot be denied that we both come from Essex.
I have explained the strategic background to the proposals, so I want to come directly to the position of small employers, which has been the subject of particular concern, as has been clear this afternoon, even among those—and there are many—who accept the general approach that I have described. I turn now to Government amendments (a) to (e) to Lords amendment No. 7, which set out the Government's proposals for assisting small employers who experience abnormal levels of sickness in their work force on the basis of enabling them to revert to a 100 per cent. reimbursement after an employee has been sick for a specified time.
Many hon. Members who have studied the debate in another place will know that my noble Friend Lord Henley tabled an amendment on Report on the Government's behalf. The Government had already clearly shown that they were listening to that concern. The amendment formed the basis of the new clause today. It was further amended on Third Reading in another place when more specific proposals were written in, to which I shall return in a moment.
I want to say a word or two about the background. It is again important to recognise that the effects of the changes in statutory sick pay in the Bill are not sensibly seen in isolation from the proposals that I have announced for reductions in employers' national insurance contributions. To repeat a point that I have made in response to several interventions, although the reductions go right across the spectrum of employers' contributions, they have been weighted deliberately in favour of small employers who are more likely to have employees on the lower contribution rates. For employees earning up to £185 a week, the proposed reduction in the employers' contribution is 0·4 per cent. against 0·05 per cent. where the employee earns above that sum.
If the small employer suffers average sickness levels in his work force, the contribution reductions will more than offset the reduced SSP reimbursement rate. I gave a number of examples when we last debated the Bill in this House, as did my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State in another place. However, in the light of this afternoon's discussion, it may be helpful for me to give one or two further examples.
If an employer has five employees all earning £170 a week and one of those employees is away for a total of three weeks in the year, which is the average incidence of sickness, there will be a net gain to the employer of £94·39. That assumes not only the 80 per cent. reimbursement, but that the employer tops up the difference between the lower and higher rate of statutory sick pay under an occupational sick pay scheme. That will not be true in all cases and, where it is not, the gain to the employer will be larger. Even on the least good basis that I can take, there will be a gain of almost £100 a year to the employer. Even if the employee is away for six weeks in the year—that is, twice the average incidence of sickness—there would still, on the relatively unfavourable basis from my point of view, be a modest gain of £11·98.
If the employer had 10 employees in that earnings range and experienced the same incidence of sickness, the savings would be £188·78 and £23·96 respectively, while an

employer with 20 employees all earning £170 would gain £377·56 with four employees sick for three weeks, and just under £48 if the four were away for six weeks.
I hope that I have said enough, because, clearly, those examples can be multiplied almost indefinitely, to indicate that, in a number of perfectly reasonable representative cases, even allowing for above-average sickness, a large number of employees and employers would gain from my proposals taken as a package, although not, of course, if we look only at the proposals in the Bill, but they are integral with the reductions in national insurance contributions. It is very important that I should underline that point with all the emphasis at my command.

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: My right hon. Friend will know that I have made representations to him about all the extra money that he has already announced. I support his long battles with the Treasury, although I am not sure whether I agree with this one. However, will my right hon. Friend reassure the House and many other people that the scheme will not discriminate against those who have more sickness than others? There are bound to be people in work who, for whatever reason, need more time off because of their illnesses. There is great worry that they will be discriminated against by a company that decides that it cannot afford to take them on because they would be off work more often than an average employee.

Mr. Newton: I shall refer later to the main thrust of what my hon. Friend says because it is related to the amendments. Her general point has been raised on several occasions. It was a main argument for not opting for a statutory sick pay scheme in the first place. There has been no evidence of which I am aware that the introduction of statutory sick pay, or any of the changes that have been made in it, have had the effect that my hon. Friend fears, often relating to disabled people in particular. Indeed, a recent survey suggests that disabled people in general have less sickness than many other people in the population. There is no need for employers to have that anxiety. There is no evidence that that anxiety has had a significant effect.
Obviously, there are difficulties for disabled people in gaining employment. Those difficulties need to be tackled in other more specific and direct ways. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Social Security and Disabled People has some responsibility, and my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Department of Employment have a wide variety of schemes. I am sure that the effect of those is much more significant than anything contained in the proposals.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Newton: In one of the increasingly numerous intervals in which I have been sitting rather than standing, I have gathered that there is some concern about the little time that will be left for other hon. Members to take part in the debate. In view of the extent to which I have given way, it would be sensible for me to make some progress.
I have just given some examples of small firms—

Ms. Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) or her hon. Friend the Member for


Oldham, West will no doubt have an opportunity to make a substantial speech. It would be sensible now for me to make progress.

Ms. Short: The right hon. Gentleman is misleading the House.

Mr. Newton: I knew that it would be a mistake to give way to the hon. Lady. The trouble is that, when one does not give way to the hon. Lady, she simply falls back on interventions from a sedentary position.

Ms. Short: It is an important point.

Mr. Newton: I have acknowledged persistently and repeatedly that there is a balance of £100 million—a tiny fraction though that is—of labour costs as a whole and that, therefore, not everybody can be gainers. However, the points of concern that have been mentioned by hon. Members and that have come in profusion from other quarters as well are being addressed in particular to the position of small businesses.[Interruption.] I cannot say for all small businesses, although we certainly hope to make sure that it will be virtually all small businesses. On any reasonable assessment of what they will be required to pay in SSP and what they will gain in reduced national insurance contributions, taken with the safeguard to which I am about to refer, very large numbers of small businesses are likely to be gainers from the proposals, and not losers. That is clear whichever way one looks at the statistics.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Newton: In fairness to Scotland, I shall give way.

Mrs. Ewing: Will the Secretary of State give a statistical analysis of the number of gainers and losers? That point is vital, particularly in rural communities such as my own, where we are dependent upon small businesses to retain local work forces.

Mr. Newton: Each intervention now demonstrates that it would be more sensible if I got on with my speech.
The concession that the Government are proposing, which is contained in the admittedly rather complicated amendments, is estimated to cover 700,000 employers. That is more than half the employers who submit national insurance returns to us. Those 700,000—a very large number of small employers, because the definition that we chose is generous—will have not merely the regular advantages of the national insurance contributions set against an average expectation of having to pay some SSP; they will have the safeguard that, if any employee is sick for more than six weeks, they will go back to 100 per cent. reimbursement. In those cases, there is a strict limit to the amount of extra SSP that they can be expected to pay in respect of any employee. I hope that that will reassure the hon. Lady for Moray (Mrs. Ewing). The measure is specifically designed as a safeguard for the employer who experiences an above-average record of sickness in a member of his work force. I must try to curtail my speech.
We acknowledge that the operation of averages is easier to apply the larger the firm is. It is precisely for that reason that we have brought forward the amendments directed to the position of small firms in the way that I have described. Our efforts have been concentrated on designing a scheme that will help small employers whose experience departs

from the average, and that is the basis on which we seek support for the concession that is contained in the amendments.
Different approaches to the problem have been urged on us. Originally, in another place we put forward an amendment in broad terms that would have allowed us scope for different ways of defining who was to count as a small employer for this purpose and different ways of seeking to cope with above-average sickness. However, their Lordships expressed a clear preference for one particular way of doing that, and it is that method of achieving that, rather than the exact details of what was passed in another place, that I am recommending to the House.
As is self-evident, the amendments are complicated. I shall do my best to pick my way through the key provisions and explain them as carefully as I can.

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: Without giving way.

Mr. Newton: I am grateful to be urged in that respect by my hon. Friend, as he has been known to intervene on Secretaries of States' speeches on earlier occasions. I shall take that remark as a self-denying ordinance, for the time being at least.
The first key issue is how we define a small employer. The most obvious way is by the number of employees—five, 10 or 20. However, that method is open to some obvious difficulties. For example, it does not cope with the problem of an employer who has a fluctuating work force, and there are several other difficulties on which I shall not elaborate to the House. We concluded that it would be fairer and simpler to define a small employer by reference to his contribution payments in the preceding tax year. That focuses the definition of his actual wage bill. I am glad to say that, on a matter which has not been free from controversy, that approach to defining a small employer seems to have met with universal agreement.
In practice the method would work as follows. All employers are already required, within 14 days of the end of the tax year, to complete a return to the Inland Revenue giving the total tax and national insurance contributions during that year. So employers should have the information readily available. If the total contributions are within a specified figure, the employer will qualify as a small employer during the whole of the succeeding year. Our original proposal and our amendment set the level at £15,000 of national insurance contributions in a year. That corresponds precisely with what the other place wished.
It will make things clearer to people and enable them to judge the meaning of the definition if I say a word about the scale and size of firms which will come within it. I have already said in response to the hon. Member for Moray that we estimate that some 700,000 employers will potentially be eligible, ranging from an employer with four employees who all are on the upper earnings limit of £350 a week—fairly well paid people—to an admittedly unlikely set-up at the opposite end of the spectrum of 90 employees all on the lower earnings limit of £46 a week. The definition would cover both a large firm of low-paid people and a smaller firm of rather better paid people. It is a much more satisfactory definition than the alternative of counting heads.
To give a few other examples, the definition would cover a firm of 22 employees all earning £100 a week or of


12 employees all earning £150 a week. As I said, we believe that that is a flexible system. I am sure that it is the right way to proceed. There is common agreement on that in both this House and another place.
Another point which we have accepted is contained in our amendments. It is that the concession and safeguard to employers defined on that general basis should be related to the number of weeks for which an individual has been sick. At various stages in another place there was considerable argument about whether it was better to go for a relatively simple and straightforward approach or one that rested on an aggregated amount of SSP paid in a particular period.
The Government originally hoped to consult on which method industry would prefer but, in the event, another place made it clear that it preferred a solution based on the number of weeks. We thought it right to accept that. However, its proposal was rather complicated. It suggested that one tranche of employers should have 100 per cent. reimbursement throughout, another should receive 100 per cent. reimbursement after three weeks and another 100 per cent. reimbursement after six weeks. We believe that it is right to go for a simpler system and that a proposal which secured 100 per cent. reimbursement for employers of any size went rather too far in view of the contribution reductions to which I have referred. Therefore, we tabled amendments which go beyond our original intention, which was a threshold of eight weeks, to the significantly more generous basis of six weeks, which, as I said, will apply to individual employees and will affect about 700,000 employers. We believe that that is about the right level at which to pitch the measure.
To return to my example of an employer with five employees earning £170 a week who had one employee away for six weeks, the employer would have a total extra cost of £164·82 in SSP but his saving in national insurance contributions over his work force as a whole would be £176·80. So he would still be almost £12 to the good. He would begin to go into deficit if the SSP lasted for more than six weeks. That is when the Government propose that the small employers' relief and a return to 100 per cent. reimbursement should apply to prevent him from going into deficit.
I have necessarily spent some little time on the proposals, not only as a result of interventions but because I thought it right to explain the proposals as fully as possible. I shall explain as briefly as possible some of the other points covered by the Government amendments.

Mr. Meacher: Will the Secretary of State give way?

Mr. Newton: It would be more sensible if the hon. Gentleman allowed me to get on. I understand that he will make his own speech afterwards.
Our amendments to subsection (1B) of Lords amendment No. 7 set out the formula for determining whether a small employer is entitled to small employers' relief. There is an algebraic formula, which is not as complicated as it might appear. It ensures that all days of SSP, including odd days, count in the calculation. Another improvement on the Lords amendments is that by relating the provision to periods of incapacity for work, linked spells—spells of SSP not separated by more than eight weeks—can be taken into account in calculating the six

weeks. That is a refinement which is not in the Lords amendments. Indeed, it is a further useful safeguard for businesses which experience above-average sickness in an employee.
Subsection (1C) of our amendment (a) to Lords amendment No.7 retains for possible but not certain use in future some of the flexibility which we originally sought to gain. Whether it is appropriate to use it will depend on events. We shall take very much into account early experience of our proposals. We have maintained, at the cost of some additional complexity in drafting our amendments, the scope to adopt a different approach, what I would call an aggregation, rather than an individual employee approach, if that seems the sensible course. Several noble Lords in another place, including my noble Friend Lord Jenkin, attached particular importance to such an approach and we were anxious to retain the flexibility to adopt it if it seemed sensible.
Subsection (1D) contains the power which enables regulations to define a small employer on the basis of contribution payments. The power is sufficiently flexible to allow us to define the prescribed period to which the contribution threshold relates to a period other than the preceding tax year. That makes provision for the new employer who does not have a full year's national insurance record on which he can be judged.
The only other significant point which must be made is that subsection (1E) meets a point pressed on us fairly hard in another place by setting into the primary legislation the scope for reviewing the £15,000 contribution threshold. The subsection requires the Secretary of State to consider each year whether the threshold should be increased in the light of various points referred to in the amendment.
I have said as much as I need to say about the drafting of the amendment, which represents a significant additional safeguard for small businesses which experience above-average sickness. Such employers would be likely —I cannot say certain—to be gainers from the basic structure of our proposals.
Before I conclude, I should make a few remarks about Lords amendment No. 5.

Mr. Richard Holt: How much will the proposals for large employers such as Cleveland county council affect the community charge? Any extra cost will have to be passed on by large employers but employers such as councils do not have customers to whom they can go, only community charge payers.

Mr. Newton: I have necessarily used illustrative examples. Clearly it is not possible for me to work out, certainly not on my feet, the precise affect on Cleveland county council or any other employer, without any knowledge of the mix of its employees and the wages paid to them. However, such employers will benefit from the reduction in national insurance contributions, which applies at every level of earnings and to employers of all sizes.
5.30 pm
Lords Amendment No. 5 removes from the Bill scope for making further changes in the reimbursement rate by means of secondary rather than primary legislation. Without by any means accepting everything that was said on that matter in another place—perhaps it has been overlooked that there is power under secondary legislation to raise employers' national insurance contributions by no


less than about £1 billion—I readily accept that it was a point of concern to the business community which, despite what I said on Second Reading, continued to express fears lest there was some settled plan for going further than what was contained in the Bill.
I am happy to advise the House in that respect to agree with the Lords in the amendment so that were any change to be contemplated at any future stage it would be necessary to bring primary legislation before the House, rather than to act on the basis of secondary legislation.
I appreciate that I have delayed the House for some time, I hope for reasons which the House will understand. In everything that I have said is implied the view, which I hold strongly, that what we have proposed strikes a fair and reasonable balance—a new and slightly adjusted balance—in the provision for short-term sickness in circumstances where the small shift that it proposes makes an important contribution to progress on other social security objectives which are widely supported.
My view that that is a fair and reasonable balance, in the context of social security spending as a whole, is greatly strengthened by the additional safeguard that we have built in for small businesses, responding to representations made by many of my hon. Friends and others, and I seek the support of the House for those changes, modified as they have been, as a whole.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I must advise the House that the amendment and Lords amendments Nos. 2 to 7 involve privilege.

Mr. Meacher: It is an unhappy day for parliamentary democracy when the Government impose a heavy 'Whip, as we are led to believe, to try to marshal their full majority over amendments made in another place which merely soften, but do not in any way strike out, what must be one of the most unpopular Bills in modern times. But I am encouraged by the number of Conservative Members present for the debate, which I hope will be a genuine and open debate on the issues involved.
It is not unfair to say that the Bill does not have a friend anywhere, except the Treasury and the occupants of the Government Front Bench. It is comprehensively repudiated by the CBI, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Engineering Employers Federation, the Building Employers Federation and by any and every small business and organisation one cares to name, as well as by the TUC, the trade unions and the voluntary sector.
Indeed, the business community and all major business representative groups are united—I cannot recall when this has previously been the case—in still demanding that the Government withdraw the whole Bill, even after the damage limitation achieved in another place.

Mr. Holt: Is the hon. Gentleman also aware that the Institute of Personnel Management is opposed to this legislation, being the practitioners who would have to put it into practice?

Mr. Meacher: I am glad to accept the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, which I hope was heard by the Minister. It adds to my point that the right hon. Gentleman would find it impossible to find any reputable body outside which favours the Bill. I cannot recall a time when I was able to say that to the Government.

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?

Mr. Meacher: No, because it is a side issue and I am anxious to make progress with my speech.
The Minister's palpable embarrassment at defending the indefensible was exposed in his Third Reading speech, which must have been the shortest I have witnessed in 20 years in Parliament. It occupied a mere five lines in Hansard, the right hon. Gentleman simply saying that he might decide to say something later, which in the event he did not. In view of that obvious and manifest embarrassment, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman does not come to our proceedings today with a closed mind and that he will not treat Parliament with the contempt that a heavy Whip might suggest, for we are faced with serious issues that must be debated seriously.
The central issue today is whether the Lords amendment to make the whole new Government package completely cost neutral should be allowed to stand. The original Bill was, as the Minister said, intended to cut the reimbursement of SSP from 100 to 80 per cent. It also removed the 7 per cent. additional handling charge which employers could claim for administrative cost.
That would have cost employers about £250 million in 1991–92. That was roughly balanced—it was fair for the Secretary of State to make the point—by reductions in employers' national insurance contribution rates which would have saved them about £250 million a year. But those changes were heavily slanted in favour of employers paying below average wages, and they are not necessarily small employers.
But the Government have offered no compensation to employers for the increased cost that they will have to bear as a result of the changes in SSP rates announced in the right hon. Gentleman's annual benefit uprating statement. Because of the rise in the earnings threshold, from £125 to £185, which determines entitlement to the higher rate of SSP, about three million workers will lose eligibility, of whom about 600,000 who might be expected to claim this year will lose about £9 a week.
In many cases, employers would have to make up the shortfall and their costs would rise by as much as £100 million, according to the Government's figures. It was that shortfall which the Lords amendment was designed to rectify. It would increase the employers' reimbursement rate to 91 per cent. That percentage is fine tuned to increase the amount reimbursed to employers by £99 million, which is virtually exactly the loss to employers from the change in the SSP threshold. So the overall effect of the amendment is cost neutral in the Government's calculations.
Three central questions are at issue today; first, why are the Government resisting the amendment and going to such lengths to overturn it; secondly, why are they so determined, in the face of a triple rejection in another place and when the business community is screaming for the withdrawal of the Bill, to push ahead with a measure that is cost neutral in its basic structure; and, thirdly, why are they being so excessively mean and niggardly, as I shall show, towards small employers and going out of their way to deny them the smallest relief already agreed in another place?
The answers to those questions will reveal much about the Government's intentions. Why are they refusing to accept an overall cost neutral package? The answer seems


clear. Indeed, the right hon. Gentleman virtually said as much today. He is having to make cuts in the package to recompense the Treasury for the minor concessions that he has already obtained from the Treasury on tick, in particular for the increase in child benefit.
So the first reason to oppose the Government today is that that part of the Secretary of State's argument is wholly objectionable. It is not right to try to justify cuts in provision for one vulnerable group on the ground that more is being spent on another. A separate point is that the argument is also tantamount to the state advocating its well-established responsibility to protect the welfare of employees during periods of sickness.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman loves to present himself to the House as the scourge of the employing classes. Why is he not prepared to accept the proposition that employers have a responsibility to their employees when they are sick? There is nothing wrong with requiring them to make a modest contribution to the care of sick employees. The hon. Gentleman does not answer that question because the point he makes is completely bogus.

Mr. Meacher: I am happy to answer the hon. Gentleman's question. I agree that employers have a responsibility towards their employees when they are sick. The problem is that the survey from which the Government like to quote on the highly spurious 91 per cent. figure shows that only 44 per cent. of private sector employers provide occupational sick pay for their employees. For small firms, the figure is only about half that. That is why the state still has a clear responsibility, and it is foolish of the hon. Gentleman not to recognise that.
It is not as though the extra £1 for the first child is much of an increase after a four-year freeze. The Secretary of State tried to outline the great improvements that the Government are making and said that, of course, employers must bear some of the cost. However, an increase of £1 a week for only the first child after a four-year freeze, when the shortfall is £2·30 a week, does not amount to much. The Secretary of State needed to make some improvement as a figleaf before the forthcoming election, but the Treasury would not fund it and forced the right hon. Gentleman to find the money by making cuts elsewhere. That is why the Government are so adamant that they will not accept the 91 per cent. overall cost-neutral compromise and insist on returning to their original 80 per cent.
I think it was the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), who is otherwise engaged at the moment, who hit the nail on the head: how can the Government justify asking small employers to subsidise child benefit? That was an accurate observation. The Treasury's fingerprints are all over the Bill, but nowhere more clearly than in overturning the 91 per cent. proposal made by Lord Mottistone, a Tory peer in another place.
Why are the Government so determined to press ahead with the main structure of the Bill when there is no net gain to the Exchequer—any savings on the Consolidated Fund are cancelled out by reduced income from national insurance contributions—and when all the business organisations demand that, in the light of the defeats

inflicted in another place, the Bill should be withdrawn to allow for the consultations that should have taken place when the Bill was first drafted?

Mr. Newton: I shall try not to intervene too much, but there are echoes in the hon. Gentleman's speech of an earlier exchange that we had. Will the hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that, when he has to put up employers' national insurance contributions to fund his expensive promises, he will yield to the blandishments of employers should they protest about what he is doing and try to stop it?

Mr. Meacher: We have no intention of increasing employers' national insurance rate contributions, so the problem does not arise. As the Secretary of State is so extremely keen to press the point, we have said that we believe that there should be improvements for the pensioners, who have had such a lousy past decade, and in child benefit, which would be financed by removing the upper threshold of national insurance contributions, so that the rich, who have had such a bumper decade, would contribute a bit to help those at the bottom of the pile.
Before I was led aside by that intervention, I was about to give a telling quote from a document from the Association of British Chambers of Commerce, the Association of Independent Businesses, the Confederation of British Industry, the Forum of Private Business, the National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses, the Institute of Directors, the National Chamber of Trade, the National Farmers Union and the Union of Independent Companies. Apparently, the Institute of Personnel Management is not represented, but it was probably not told about it and would have wanted to put its name to it. The document states:
We are unanimously agreed that, despite the important amendments incorporated during the House of Lords debates, the best course would be for the Government to withdraw the Bill and maintain existing arrangements for the present … That would allow full discussion before any major changes in this area are introduced.
It could not be any clearer than that, so why is the Secretary of State digging in his heels? The answer is clear. The real purpose behind the wretched little Bill is gradually to transfer the whole of the cost of paying SSP to the employer. In effect, it will privatise the payment of sickness benefit. By transferring 20 per cent. of the cost, the Government save, on their own figures, £250 million and by transferring the rest the Government have their eyes on a further £1 billion. That is the real aim, which is why the Government are determined to stuff the Bill down the employers' throats come what may.
5.45 pm
However, that is not the end of the story. I shall return to the perceptive intervention of the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Sir. R. McCrindle): the transfer of statutory sick pay could well set a precedent for statutory maternity pay, giving a further saving of £270 million, and for industrial injury compensation, when the savings might be more than £500 million. Let no one be unaware of the fact that we are setting that precedent today. The bottom line is that the Bill will dismantle the welfare state. That is why we, and I suspect the great majority of people in this country, strongly object to it. The Bill also involves shifting huge costs of up to, over future years, as much as £2 billion on to employers. That is why they object to it so strongly.
It would have made it much easier for the Government if they could have overturned the Lords amendment that requires that any further changes in the percentage of reimbursement should be through primary, not secondary, legislation. That is not what the Government wanted or intended. In the original Bill, the Government proposed that any change would require only a negative resolution of the House, not even an affirmative resolution. They wanted changes to be carried out quietly behind closed doors, if possible without embarrassing discussion in the open. However, in accepting the amendment adopting the primary legislation requirement, moved and passed in another place—I welcome the fact that the Secretary of State did so—the Government display no real change of heart. If they had overturned the amendment, the nakedness of their purpose—gradually reducing the percentage reimbursement towards zero—would have been too transparent, and so they did not.
The Government, quite remarkably, refused to accept even the small concession on behalf of small employers that was moved and passed in another place. That was extraordinary, given the litany of damning screams from the Government's corporate supporters. I am sure that other hon. Members will have heard some of the complaints. The Confederation of British Industry said:
No one wants the Bill, but fear of its impact is widespread.
The Government's tabled response does not meet the case.
The best course would be withdrawal of the Bill.
The Forum of Private Business said:
The timing of the SSP Bill could hardly be worse for the small business community because of the current recession. The Government clearly does not understand small businesses —or does not care.
—[Interruption.] I am simply quoting the words of the Forum of Private Business. It goes on:
The Bill was rushed through the House of Commons at breakneck speed allowing insufficient time for small business groups to put forward positive solutions. As members of the DSS Employers Panel and the Contributions Unit, Specialist Group, the Forum of Private Business is aggrieved that it was not consulted. The proposals in the SSP bill fly in the face of the aims of the Deregulation Unit, a Government body which seeks to simplify rules and regulations affecting small firms.
The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses says:
The provisions will add substantially to the costs of some businesses, amongst them many small businesses, and do so at the worst possible time, when they are coping with a deep recession.
The Association of British Chambers of Commerce says:
This is one further burden which could push many struggling businesses into closure, supposedly in a period of deregulation when the private sector is expected to play a more prominent role.
The West Yorkshire Council of the National Chamber of Trade says:
It would place intolerable burden upon employer's at a time of high interest rates, the impact of the uniform business rate and escalating high street rents. This would be a deathblow to many local small businesses and a sharp reduction in employment, also discouraging the employment of disabled and those suffering repetitive sickness.
None of those organisations is known as having crypto-leftist sympathies. But, despite all that, the right hon. Gentleman is still not prepared to accept the modest concessions for small employers agreed in another place.
It is important to be clear just how niggardly the Government are being. When the Bill was first before the House the Government offered no concessions to small

employers; but when the business organisations, beginning to alert their members, had had enough time to stir up some palaver in another place—I am glad that they did —the Government jumped in with a concession which they hoped would quieten their Lordships. It did not.
The Government proposed a small employers' exemption after eight weeks of sickness where the annual aggregate of national insurance contributions in 1991 was less than £15,000, as the right hon. Gentleman stated. It was too little too late, and it was rejected out of hand—not surprisingly, since the number of sickness spells that exceed eight weeks is extremely small. The right hon. Gentleman did not tell us the exact number. I am not even sure that he knows, but it is certainly extremely small.
In other words, the Government were trying to buy off the Opposition with a concession which, on the best evidence given to me, was worth a paltry £1 million to £2 million. It was rejected, as it deserved to be, and instead the triple concession was passed—exemption after six weeks' sickness where contributions are under £15,000, after three weeks where contributions are under £10,000 and exemption immediately where contributions are under £5,000. It is important to realise how extremely modest that exemption package is.
National insurance contributions of less than £15,000 imply—the right hon. Gentleman had the grace to admit this—a firm with only five employees where those employees are on national average earnings. The cost of the concession, according to my best estimates, would be only about £15 million. That would still leave an overall gain from the Bill of £85 million to the Exchequer. Despite the fact that that would clearly focus help at the point where the need was greatest for small employers, would obviate administrative complexities, for which the Government are always arguing in small businesses, the Government are trying to overturn it.
In drafting prose in Government amendment (a)—algebra or otherwise, I found it some of the most impenetrable that I have ever had to wade through—the Government are now seeking to knock out the two lower thresholds: exemption after three weeks where contributions are under £10,000, and immediate exemption where contributions are under £5,000. I make it clear that in the latter case the companies that will lose the concession already granted in another place if it is overturned tonight will be overwhelmingly those employing one or two persons only—unquestionably those who have the greatest need; the companies that surely cry out for full exemption.
The sole concession that the right hon. Gentleman is now prepared to contemplate is confined to cases where sickness exceeds six weeks, which is not quite as few as where it exceeds eight weeks but it is still unusual, and where the total cost to the Exchequer is, I believe, a miserly £5 million. That is what the right hon. Gentleman is presenting to the House as a generous concession which he hopes the House will back.
I hope that Conservative Members who, perhaps justly, like to see themselves as the champions of business, particularly small business, will ask themselves tonight whether that is the action of a Government devoted to enterprise or the action of a Government who are cheese-paring and over-concerned with public expenditure cuts in the face of all common sense and reasonableness.
The effect of the Government's obstinacy will be felt most in small companies, but it will be spread across the


whole of industry. The Building Employers Confederation, which embraces, as the House will know, many large and small firms, said:
The industry has an average manual wage of £260 per week.
I make no apology for giving the figures because the right hon. Gentleman gave many figures. It goes on:
For an employee on average wages of £260 per week the reduction in employers' National Insurance Contributions will be £6·24 for the year for one employee. It can be seen from this figure that only if such a worker qualifies for Statutory Sick Pay for less than three days a year will his employer be 'a winner' or break even under the legislation. In an industry where much of the work is done in all weathers and is very physically demanding this level of sick leave is unlikely to be met in any company, large or small. The industry contains a large sector of firms employing less than twenty men, where at break even levels such as illustrated, the prolonged sickness of only one or two individuals could result in a heavy deficit under the scheme.
In the light of that and so many other representations that I and I am sure many other hon. Members have received, it is difficult to see how Conservative Members can support the Government tonight when the voice from industry and commerce is unanimously condemnatory.
Many have been put off the Bill by its assumed technicality and by the speed with which the Government pushed it through the House in order to avoid debate. But now that it has returned to the House, the issues are plain. They are not technical; they are political. They concern the state's responsibilities to employees who are sick, the right of employers not to be saddled, at extreme cost, with obligations that are not their function, and the need for the smallest businesses to be properly protected from unnecessary administrative burdens.
For those reasons, I call on hon. Members on both sides of the House, if the Government will not withdraw the Bill as they should, at least to preserve and build on the important amendments moved and passed in another place.

Mr. Nicholls: I declare at the outset my interests in the Federation of Associations of Specialists and Subcontractors and in the Hill and Smith Group.
One of the curiosities about speaking in the House is that after a period of time the coinage of hyperbole becomes completely devalued. I make that point because during the past seven years it has been my unhappy lot to hear numerous speeches made by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher). I have listened to him from the Back Benches and I have debated with him from the Front Bench and on every occasion when I have debated with him for any length of time he has shown a complete hatred—I use the word deliberately—of what he regards as the employer classes. He has never had a good word to say about them. The hon. Gentleman's view of the relationship between employees and employers—

6 pm

Mr. John Battle: I suppose that the hon. Gentleman will claim that we have a classless society.

Mr. Nicholls: —is primitive, even by the standards of those who are heckling on the hon. Gentleman's behalf. For years, we have listened to a torrent of bilious abuse about the employing classes from the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Suddenly, the piranha has turned

vegetarian, and we witness the unique spectacle of the hon. Gentleman becoming the bosses' nark—when he should be attempting to make some proper criticism of the Bill.
Did the hon. Gentleman make any real contribution or give the House the benefit of his intellectual thought? Mercifully not, but he retrieved from his wastepaper basket all the letters from employers' organisations that he should have read over the years, and quoted them to the House. The hon. Gentleman has undergone a transformation. He has joined the forces of light from the forces of darkness, and we are presented with the true champion of the employer classes. We see in the hon. Member for Oldham, West the man who claims to be the real representative of the employer classes and the one who will safeguard their interests. Who is the friend of the employers? It is the hon. Member for Oldham, West. Seldom have we been treated to a more ludicrous spectacle than seeing employers' rights championed in that way.
I will treat the hon. Gentleman's contribution with greater kindness and consideration than it deserves, and ask why it is that employers' organisations have expressed their opposition to the Bill. I have a number of advantages over the hon. Member for Oldham, West. I have actual knowledge of the subject. Unlike the hon. Gentleman, I run a small business and employ people, and must face the prospect and pressure of making a living at a time when there is a recession. As an employer myself, I do not take kindly to the proposition that I should pay out any more money, in any circumstances. My driving ethos is to gather in money, rather than to spend it. It is hardly surprising that employers' organisations should have written to their Members of Parliament, saying, "Here is a measure that will require us to pay more. We are not in favour of it." One could hardly expect them to be otherwise.
In a curious way, the Bill does nothing more than formalise the practice that many employers already follow. If the claim that there is no real connection between an employer and his employees—that the employee is just a tool to be used, and that if he falls sick he should be made a burden on the state—was ever true, it is certainly not true today. It is ridiculous to argue that an employer has no interest in a valued employee once he falls sick. In this day and age, it is equally ridiculous to expect the state to do everything, and that responsibility should be taken from others.
An editorial in The Times today makes the same point. Given the voluminous quotations used by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, it is surprising that he did not refer to that article as well. It states that the Government's arguments are powerful:
Statutory sick pay is fast becoming an anachronism. Nine out of ten employees are now covered by company schemes, most of them more generous than the state's. That is to be encouraged. And for the state to bear the whole cost of sickness creates the wrong incentive … With 30 times more days lost through sickness than through strikes, sickness management is vital to industrial efficiency. Managers should pay at least part of the cost from their pockets.
That point was also made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller).

Mr. Battle: Will the hon. Gentleman check the figure given in The Times? Is it not incorrect? Nine out of ten employees are not covered by company schemes, as that article suggests. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the Library or to the Secretary of State, he will be informed of the true figure.

Mr. Nicholls: The hon. Gentleman's point is not only bogus but boring.

Mr. Battle: Why does not the hon. Gentleman try to make an argument instead of hurling abuse?

Mr. Nicholls: I admit that my experience of socialists is that, having asked a question, they do not require an answer. However, the conventions of the House are such that, whether the hon. Gentleman likes it or not, he will get an answer.
I do not intend to turn this into a Second Reading debate, repeat all the figures that were given then, and illustrate the various ways in which they can be presented. One must inevitably do the best that one can with the figures available. If that is the best intervention that the hon. Gentleman can make in response to the arguments made today and in The Times editorial, it does not say much for the quality of his arguments.
The Bill does nothing more than acknowledge common existing practice. Employers already take an interest in employees who fall sick arid maintain contact with them. However, I concede that business organisations feared that the Government had got it wrong, especially in respect of small businesses.
On Second Reading, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out that the measure will produce gains for some. Perhaps organisations that did not understand the Bill's detailed provisions at the time of its Second Reading last November will now be reassured. If one concern deserved to be ventilated in another place, it was the effect that the Bill might—and I emphasise the word "might"—have on small businesses. My right hon. Friend has now said that, even if the Government do not concede the arguments presented in the Lords, they concede the extent of the concern that has been expressed. I may say in passing that a more improbable body to claim to be representative of small businesses than the House of Lords would be hard to find—other than the parliamentary Labour party.
In the overall context of social security spending of £63 billion a year, the Bill is a justifiable measure. One can understand the concerns expressed by small businesses, but my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has gone a long way to allay them.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) always tries to be nasty—[HON. MEMBERS: "And he succeeds.]—which should further his career. I intervene briefly because I have been asked by a representative of small firms in my constituency to raise certain issues in the debate. I have a question for the Secretary of State, who always knows the details of his legislation. I presume that the purpose of the original Bill was to save money, either for the Department or the Treasury. If so, what savings remain to be achieved after the changes" thatthe right hon. Gentleman announced? There must be some.
I declare an interest as the chairman of a small firm, from which I have never made any money and never will. I take nothing from it. It receives no grants from any source and nothing extra from the bank. It stands on its own feet. That is also at the back of my mind.
The Secretary of State referred to the growth in occupational pensions and said that it has not been so pronounced in manual occupations. I point out to the right hon. Gentleman that absenteeism is not so high in

small firms as it is in larger companies. Therefore, his argument that absenteeism should be taken into account does not apply nearly so much to small firms.
I was glad that the hon. Member for AldridgeBrownhills (Mr. Shepherd) warned the Secretary of State about the danger of using averages, which can affect the perspective. When the Secretary of State called them in aid, he failed to take into account the problems of very small firms.
I promised to raise in the House a matter which was brought to my attention by the branch secretary of the British Decorators Association, Heavy Woollen and Spen Valley branch, Mr. Peter Hanley, who lives in Morley in my constituency. It also worries me because I know that small firms have problems at the moment. Goodness knows, problems are affecting small and large firms in the building industry, including the small firm of which I am chairman. One problem is that people do not pay their bills and a shortage of income, of whatever degree, causes problems.
Mr. Hanley brought to my notice the fact that the association is
alarmed at the likely effect on small business employers"—
of the Bill. He said that what the Government are doing is
a potential death blow to small businesses—particularly in labour intensive … industries".
The Government, and not merely the Department of Social Security, should take that into account. When small firms are in trouble they cannot find the smallest amount of money. There is nobody to whom they can turn and banks are not nearly as helpful as they were.
The member firms of the British Decorators Association are small and Mr. Hanley told me that they are
already reeling under the impact of the rating system plus revaluation, high interest rates and high street rents which are escalating alarmingly in most areas of our constituency.
Will those small firms be worse off as a result of the changes made, taking into account the concessions—if that is the correct description—that the Secretary of State made tonight? Small firms have enough problems without having to face these additional ones.
I have to congratulate the Government. They are hurting large numbers of people with the poll tax—people who would normally vote for them. That is marvellous. Their policy is so right that they continue to hurt the very people who put a cross on a piece of paper. Small employers do not vote Labour in very large numbers and they, too, will be hurt. They are worried, and I hope that the Government will take their worries into account.
The Government are still saving money because of the Bill. If there were no savings they would not have introduced it. The amendments and the new clause do not go far enough. They will save money, but some firms will be worse off and that will be the straw which breaks the camel's back.
By my stage in life I understand taxation, and I agree with my Front-Bench spokesman that taxation has increased in the past 10 years, despite the fact that income tax has come down. I believe that the likes of me should pay 50 per cent., not 40 per cent., in income tax, and that it is right to go to the electorate and say that there should be higher taxation. I believe that because part of the constituency that I represent is a deprived area and every


weekend I realise that it is nonsense for people to say, "Let us cut taxes". More money needs to be spent in some areas, but it needs to be spent wisely.
The Bill will hurt small businesses rather than large numbers of people as the poll tax does. I believe in small businesses and that is why I want to help the firms in my constituency. It will not make a toss of difference at the next election in my constituency, so I am not arguing against the changes for that reason. Small businesses are in trouble and the Government are forgetting it.

Mr. Speller: Our problem is one of trust and perception. I entirely accept everything that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said. He has our trust because we have always perceived him to be a good and honourable man. However, the outcry over the relatively small changes in the Bill has also changed perceptions of Government integrity and the Treasury's integrity in influencing the Government. This is not a minor matter. The integrity of business depends upon trust.
Employers have to pay national insurance—there is no argument about that—but have always expected that they would get 100 per cent. reimbursement, having paid the premium. When one takes out an insurance policy, it is understandable, if one pays a lower premium, to have to pay the first 20 per cent. of the claim.
One of my hon Friends pointed out that before employers had to pay national insurance contributions they could insure privately and get wonderful cover for their staff. However, the essence of the matter is that compulsion is involved and that the House is doing the compelling, not the other place, where they made significant changes to the Bill.
At the moment, I am minded to vote against the Government simply because of the question of integrity. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State always makes the best case that he can, no matter how bad the hand that he is playing. The measure will not bankrupt Marks and Spencer and Cleveland council, which have both been mentioned, but for the farmers and small employers in my constituency it might be yet another of those last straws which do not quite break the camel's back but are making the camel a little bowed.
The Secretary of State tells us—I know that he means and believes it—that there is some sort of average. One can always add figures together, divide them by a number of years and get a figure, but there is no average. In some years the shops in which I have an interest are destroyed for a fortnight because all the employees and the management have influenza. In other years it will be because of a three-day cold or lurgie, but there is no such thing as an average in a small business because they do not employ enough people to make an average. We all know which employees work hard and which do not. If employees can take 21 days' sick leave without loss of pay, we all know which employees will take them because they think that it is their entitlement.
6.15 pm
As an employer I would expect to pay my premium for statutory sick pay and to get my reward if I had to call upon it. I do not hope to cash it in, to be sick, or for any of my staff to be sick, but employers are paying 100 per cent. for a 100 per cent. return.
This is not the time to impose even the smallest burden. I know that the figures are pretty good—0·04 per cent., which is negligible. However, it is not negligible if one has 10 staff to worry about.
When my right hon. Friend sums up, will he take a hard look at these so-called averages and bear in mind the fact that, although people throughout the country do not enjoy our various forms of taxation, they think that this form of taxation is especially mean. It is imposed upon those who cannot answer back. One cannot cancel the policy and find another insurance company. One is stuck with it and people like me do not like it.

Mr. Wallace: Many hon. Members respect the hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller), who made some very pertinent comments and said that his vote will be following his voice. As he said, we cannot average figures out throughout the country and somehow find an equilibrium for the Secretary of State's proposals.
When listening to the Secretary of State earlier this evening hon. Members had the right to be somewhat perplexed about what exactly he was telling the House. He certainly presented the proposals as a package with, on the one hand, national insurance contribution reductions and, on the other, an added imposition upon employers, and he suggested that they would balance each other out. However, he also said that there would be a net bonus of £100 million which would be used to help poorer pensioners and for community care—no hon. Member would quibble with that. Yet if £100 million is to be released as a result of this package, clearly there will be some losers. The pertinent question is, if small businesses are to be the losers, should they bear that burden? No one argues with the worthiness of the cause, but should small businesses have to pay for it?
My party supports Lords amendment No. 3, although we regret the proposed reduction from the present 100 per cent. to 91 per cent. We oppose any reduction.
The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) mentioned the leader in The Times today. On Second Reading, the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) did a fairly effective demolition job on the notion that nine out of 10 employees were covered by company sickness schemes. According to The Times,
for the state to bear the whole cost of sickness creates the wrong incentives.
Conservative Members frequently assert that it is not the state's money, but the taxpayer's. We are talking about national insurance contributions made by both employers and employees, and we wanted a rebate.
Back in the early 1980s, the Select Committee on Social Services considered the original proposals. I referred to its findings on Second Reading. Its report states:
Whilst the reduction in national insurance liability will be approximately proportional to payroll costs, the liability to pay ESSP will be far less evenly spread. Industries, occupations or regions with higher than average rates of sickness will have relatively greater costs under ESSP.
Despite that timely warning some nine or 10 years ago, the Government have presented a scheme that they roundly rejected then and have fallen into the same old trap of trying to pretend that there is a possibility of a trade-off between changes in national insurance contributions and sick pay provisions.

Ms. Short: The Bill was introduced with such speed that the social security advisory committee was unable to report at the time. Is not that another part of the whole dishonourable process?

Mr. Wallace: The problem was not only the speed with which the Bill was introduced, but the speed with which further stages were taken, with Second Reading on a Monday and remaining stages on the Wednesday. That hardly allowed us time to breathe, let alone adopt a considered approach. The other place had time to engage in useful deliberation and consultation and thus was able to consider the Bill much more effectively.
I believe that the Bill will have an uneven impact, affecting small businesses disproportionately—notwithstanding the concessions that have been made. The National Federation of Self Employed and Small Businesses Ltd. has made some calculations, taking into account both the 80 per cent. rebate provision in the Bill and the changes in employers' national insurance contributions. In 1990–91, if an employee earned £100 a week and his employer paid £7·03 national insurance, with a 100 per cent. SSP rebate—which would amount to £39·25—the 7 per cent. national insurance rebate would amount to £2·75, resulting in the employer's paying a total of £65·03. Following the enactment of the Bill, the employer would pay a total of £71·80—£6·77 per week more per employee, in a small business. That may seem a small amount, but the hon. Member for Devon, North referred to the "last straw". For a company facing a deepening recession, even that sum can mount up when multiplied by a number of weeks and a number of employees.
In the case of an employee earning £125 per week, the added subsidy from employers is estimated at £18·34 per week, while in the case of an employee earning £150 per week the added subsidy amounts to £20·74 per week. When the employee is earning £184·50 per week, the added subsidy is estimated to be £.17·97. Those are fairly sizeable sums, which put the "package" referred to so frequently by the Secretary of State into context.
Although we support the amendment, given a 91 per cent. rebate, the balance between what is gained and what is lost is neutral. That is very much the second-best option, the best being no diminution at all.
We are glad to learn that the Government accept Lords amendment No. 5, moved by Lord Russell—in fairly vigorous terms, I understand, with copious references to Henry VIII. His was a very good speech, and I am glad that its persuasive power had its effect on the Government. If they try in future to change the rate and provide for a higher rebate, they must come back to Parliament with primary legislation. That is an important principle, irrespective of the subject matter: many hon. Members on both sides of the House believe that far too much secondary legislation goes through both Houses of Parliament, especially by means of negative resolution.
Further contentious matter is contained in Lords amendment No. 7 and the Government amendment to it. Admittedly, the Government have made an attempt to find some relief for small businesses, but we do not believe that it goes nearly far enough. In Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood) proposed an amendment that he intended to have a similar effect, limiting the impact of the provisions

and bringing relief to companies employing fewer than 20 workers. The Government rejected that amendment, but wiser counsels prevailed in another place.
We support the amendment moved successfully in another place by Lord Stanley. According to the figures that I have been given, a total national insurance contribution of less than £15,000 could cover companies employing up to 20 workers, with a taper giving cover of £10,000 for a company employing between five and 10 people and £5,000 for a company employing one or two. The estimates that I have been given differ somewhat from those cited by the hon. Member for Oldham, West; it is the difference between £6 million and £15 million. Either way, it is a small amount compared with the Government's total budget and what they seek to achieve in the Bill.
I ask the Secretary of State to consider the merits of the taper that would allow the smallest businesses—those employing only one or two people—exemption in the event of sickness. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman needs much imagination to understand what it means to such a business to have 50 per cent., or even 100 per cent., of its work force off sick. I am not talking only about the cost with which this provision will land such businesses; I am talking about the cost to the enterprise as a whole of lacking a key employee at a certain time. The taper is designed not just to provide financial relief, but to take account of the set-up in many small businesses where the value of individual employees is even greater than it is in firms employing 100 or 500 people, in which a single absence could probably be covered.
We are sorry that the Government seek to lose the taper. They propose a £15,000 threshold and a period of six weeks. As I said earlier, that period appears to bear no relation to principle; it is twice as long as the average sickness period. Although the Secretary of State suggested that 700,000 businesses would come into that category, it is clear that many fewer stand to benefit.
I echo the view that the best option would be the withdrawal of the Bill. It is a penny-pinching, mean-minded measure that will affect small businesses especially badly at a time of recession and will affect those forming businesses when they, too, face exceptional difficulties. It is, as we said, the last straw for many businesses. It does little to save the Treasury money; it leads to little saving in manpower. Rather, it transfers to the private sector a state function which I believe many hon. Members feel should lie with the state.
We shall support the amendments that were made in the other House, but only as second best to the Government's withdrawing this Bill altogether.

Mr. Richard Shepherd: I rise to comment, for the purposes of the debate, on Lords amendment No. 3, to praise my right hon. Friend and, I hope, in passing to damn this Bill. I want to praise my right hon. Friend because I would not want him to misunderstand. He can surely tell that there is great affection for him and trust in what he has been doing over a number of years in social security. That is not affected in any way by what I am about to say.
It seemed to me that the burden of my right hon. Friend's case was that he had provided a number of gains of one kind, that these had merit, but that there was a cost in securing those gains and it was not unreasonable to ask


businesses to contribute to that cost. I understand the argument perfectly, and I believe that we are in deeper waters than my simple translation of the position might imply, because there is a point here that goes to the heart of the matter.
I understood that the statutory sick pay scheme was brought about because, the Government said, it was effectively a no cost scheme for businesses. Indeed, that point was emphasised when they made an additional grant of 7 per cent. in a sense for administering the scheme. However, as my right hon. Friend pointed out, times change, and this is what really concerns me. He is looking at a social security budget and within that he is trying to see perhaps a gain here and a recapturing of expenditure there. This measure goes to the heart of small businesses and, indeed, of every business in the country. I wonder what the Department of Trade and Industry has to say on this, or indeed the Department of Employment.
I take the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller). It is true that in life the success of great enterprises is often a question of sentiment. With people behind one, one can achieve miracles. When one does not have people behind one, that withdrawal of sentiment and faith in institutions, Governments or parties makes it much more difficult to get things to work.
Let me put the argument from the point of view of business. I have watched with regret the rise of inflation. I say no more than that. It has imposed great difficulties on businesses. There have been rapid increases in rent, reflecting an increase in money supply. We have seen the corrective action that has had to be taken, an increase in interest rates. We have seen entry into the exchange rate mechanism, which means that we now predicate our interest rate policy on exchange rates. All these have a direct bearing on both small and large businesses. And at the end of the day, through this measure, we are putting an additional burden on businesses. We are changing the sentiment.
As my right hon. Friend has acknowledged, and as was shown in the debate in another place, we do not know how this falls. We do not know the incidence of those covered by company sick pay schemes. I think that the rubric is that 90 per cent. of companies have some form of sick pay scheme. I should have liked my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) to have taken on board that point because it was he who, in part, stirred me to speak in this debate. I am very glad to note that he obviously affords all the benefits that The Times urges all companies to provide.
But life is a transitional matter and we try to achieve what we can as and when we can. The burden of my concern is that we are placing an additional disadvantage on companies. It is not very easy to quantify and in some instances it is probably very small. I accept my right hon. Friend's statement that there might be instances of very small companies benefiting from his amendment. But for some it is a burden of considerable size, and this is where I am very sceptical about Government statistics. They say that £250 million represents only ·075 per cent. of £300 billion. What has that got to do with the price of fish? That

is what we used to say in business. It has very little to do with the price of fish. It is a burden that is borne by the businesses.
I cannot blame my right hon. Friend for this imposition. I feel that it is a misjudgment of Government. I think, therefore, that our noble Friends and all those who often support our party instinctively—small business men like myself—would be grateful if the Government took the opportunity to reflect and to withdraw what is an abysmal little measure.

Mr. Battle: On 26 November, when the House debated the principle of the Bill on Second Reading, we were told by the Secretary of State that the proposals in the Bill would be widely welcomed. I think it was the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) who said that employers wanted to accept more responsibility for their lives. What we have learnt today in the debate, as well as in the country at large, and in the debate in the other place, is that that is manifestly not the case.
Markers were put down on Second Reading and in Committee, on 28 November, when the House discussed the Bill, and there were votes on the issue then. It is worth bearing in mind that the Government tried to squeeze this Bill through the House at what we might call the interregnum between the former Prime Minister's resignation and the election of the new Prime Minister. It was the time when there seemed to be almost wall-to-wall coverage by the press and other media of the changes in the Conservative leadership. Therefore, there was very little coverage of what was happening in the House. Only subsequently has the world woken up to the Bill's implications.
Since that time the Bill has gone to the other place, which has overruled the Government's proposals. We are now faced with a Government amendment that is nearly as long as the Bill itself, and the Secretary of State refers to it as safeguards being built in when it is really a late-in-the-day rearguard action against a badly mauled Bill that should be withdrawn because of injury.
In opposing the Bill, the Confederation of British Industry says in its letter that no one wants the Bill and that
The Bill has been rushed. Serious concerns only emerged during the last stages.
I would argue that some of those concerns were raised on the Floor of the House, and it is on the record for those who care to reflect on it. We have argued throughout, and we repeat now, that it is the Government's policy in the Bill to reduce the state statutory social security contributions and to push those burdens on to the backs of employers, and ultimately the employees will have to pay the price.
The hon. Member for Teignmouth cited the editorial in The Times today. He should not believe all that he reads in every newspaper. This Bill was rooted in a report commissioned by the DHSS, and the Government claimed at the time that the vast majority of workers were covered by private occupational schemes. However, the details in that report show that 44 per cent. of all private sector firms and 55 per cent. of firms with fewer than 10 employees, which effectively accounts for 75 per cent. of firms, have no scheme whatsoever. How does that show that 90 per cent. are covered by private schemes? Even in firms where some occupational scheme exists, coverage is far from universal


because the employees most commonly affected are covered by exclusion clauses; they are working part time in lower grades on low wages, so they are not included.
Effectively, nearly one in two schemes has exclusion clauses relating to the length of service and the hours of work. In other words, 72 per cent. of employees may be affected by those exclusion clauses. So the coverage is extremely limited and even the writer of The Times editorial might like to reflect on the true evidence that we ought to be considering instead of creating the impression that there is blanket coverage when there is not.
The Minister said in the past that fears were exaggerated. I remind the House that we were told that fears about the poll tax were exaggerated. There is a very interesting parallel—because what is the figure there? The Government insisted that everybody must pay at least 20 per cent. regardless of ability to pay. It was precisely that clause that landed the Government in the mess with the poll tax that they are now trying to clear up. The same is true of the uniform business rate and the unavailability —for—work test.
The Bill represents a further withdrawal of Government responsibility, significantly now at the worst of all possible times. The recession is manifestly worse. Interest rates are biting and everyone knows it. When the cornerstone store in Leeds—Lewis's—has to put a closed notice on its doors after having negotiated a wage cut of 7·5 per cent., it is clear that the economic policy of this country must be deeply flawed. Firms are beginning to pay the price.
Traditionally, Leeds is the city of small and medium-sized firms. The fact is that 4,500 small and medium-sized firms make up the city's commercial base. The Leeds chamber of commerce and industry wrote to me at the end of last month and said:
At our recent Council meeting, our members were unanimous in expressing their opposition to the proposals to substantially alter the administrative procedures of Statutory Sick Pay.
We are particularly concerned by the intention to reduce from 100% to 80% the amount by which employers are reimbursed by Government for payments made to sick employees by deduction from remittances of National Insurance Contributions … it was agreed that the existing principle behind SSP—that it is a state benefit administered by employers—should not be weakened and that the existing reimbursement of 100% should remain … we do not acknowledge that individual employers can expect such a neat balancing act and believe that many businesses will be adversely affected.
One of our members with a large labour force reports that the cost of staff sickness is currently running at the rate of around £1·25 million to £1·5 million per annum. They estimate that the proposal to reduce the current level of reimbursement of employers' expenditure on SSP from 100% to 80% would cost them about £50,000 per annum.
At a time when industry and commerce is under severe financial pressure we feel that it is totally inappropriate to bring forward such legislation".
The letter is signed by the president of the Leeds chamber of commerce and industry. Tragically, he has had to announce 250 job losses in his own textile manufacturing company in the city. The Leeds chamber of commerce and industry knows about the pressures that small and medium-sized firms face. Some firms will have to pay back to the bank 21 per cent. in interest. They may employ only two or three people. Their margins are absolutely tight. Marginal costs can mean jobs lost. I urge the Secretary of State not to paper over the Bill by means of long amendments but to take it away and think again.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I have listened with increasing weariness to the rantings and ravings of Her Majesty's Opposition. Their opposition to this excellent measure seems to be based on the same tired, old and outdated battles on class structure and hatred of employers which makes the linkage with the Confederation of British Industry somewhat suspect. All hon. Members have received a battery of pleas from eminent employer organisations urging us to oppose the Bill. Might we now for a moment or two look at more logical reasons for not responding to the pleas of those organisations?
The point has been made that the Bill was introduced in haste. There is something in that argument. However, we have had a good debate and I suggest that the fact that the Secretary of State has considered the arguments sensitively shows that more time is not needed to debate the Bill and that it could easily be passed this evening.
Secondly, there is the question of timing and the difficulty of implementing such a measure during a recession. Small firms are the most immediately vulnerable during a recession. I received a good proposal from the National Farmers Union, but the proposals made by the Secretary of State in the form of amendments must go far enough to ease worries.
Thirdly, and most important of all—

Mr. Wallace: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Miss Nicholson: As I want to make a short speech, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me for not giving way.
Thirdly, there is the philosophical question: is it right that the Government should place the burden of responsibility for this modest proportion of statutory sick pay on employers? To that question I say, resoundingly, yes. Henry VIII—that excellent merry monarch—has already been mentioned in the debate. Is it not appropriate to think of employer-employee responsibilities as somewhat akin to marriage? In marriage one takes on one's partner in sickness and in health. That is also true of the partnership in the workplace. We cannot take on an employee and say that we shall take on only part of that employee—that we shall use that man or woman only if he or she is in 100 per cent. health. We take on the whole person—their skills, qualities and weaknesses—and also that person's liability, which all of us share, to fall sick from time to time.
6.45 pm
It is important to the health of British industry that there should be a far closer partnership between employer and employee. Germany is hugely successful. Japan—an even more dominant partner in the coming worldwide pattern of trade—has the closest possible link between employer and employee. I believe that the state makes a very bad third partner—indeed, a very bad mistress which could lead to divorce between employer and employee. By taking away responsibility from the two partners affected by the working partnership—the person in charge and the person who is taken on—the state causes grave difficulties for British industry and weakens the role of management as well as the position of the employee.
Why, therefore, should the state intervene in the first place by making any form of statutory sick pay provision? Why did the House of Commons pass such a measure? The primary role of the state is to set standards on behalf of society, to which society should adhere. The best


employers already run excellent statutory sick pay schemes. However, there are many not-so-good employers. Therefore, the state has to set standards in order to ensure that all employers follow the best possible practice. That must be the primary role of the state. Its role is not to take responsibility off our shoulders, whether we be individual citizens or organisations, or large or tiny firms. The state must set standards for employers.
We have spoken at length about small firms. This is an article of faith to which both sides of the House seem to be firmly pinned, but large and medium-sized companies are just as important to the health of the British economy. The Bill will go a long way towards buttressing the good partnership between employer and employee at all levels of British business. I strongly support the Bill.

Mr. Frank Field: I wish to add one point and, perhaps surprisingly, to move the debate on from the speech that we have just heard from the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson). If the hon. Lady were to suggest that I have joined the class rantings on this side of the House, although it may not further the debate, it may improve my chances in my constituency. That would be none too bad a thing.
My single point is that we are discussing an important and considerable change—a point that has not always been made clear in the speeches that I have heard. I am afraid that I was not here for the first part of the debate, as I wished to attend the meeting with the Polish ambassador. I oppose this change. I am not one of those who traditionally oppose change. It was the Labour party that first proposed the sale of council houses. I believed it to be an important means of spreading wealth in the community. Moreover, I want pension changes to be made that go far beyond those proposed by the Government. I also want those who are building up substantial private sector assets, in the form of pension funds, to have real control over those assets.
I am not committed to a state bureaucracy that delivers welfare benefits. I wish that we were debating a renaissance of friendly societies under which we could choose the means of receiving benefits. However, on the question of sickness pay and the national insurance scheme, I must take a stand. There is a coalition of interests between Members on both sides of the House. We are making a plea about rights of citizenship. There are some things in society that are so important and fundamental that provision must be made by the state. When the original sick pay scheme was introduced we lost that debate. I believe that the Government were able to get that change through the House only because employers and their representatives on the Government side were given a guarantee that it would involve no costs for employers.
The issue of principle at stake tonight is that that commitment is being broken in such a way that the weakest backs in industry will have to bear the burden. The Government are being given something of a fright. No Secretary of State introducing such a little rag-bag of amendments would have to spend an hour explaining them if there were not trouble from behind. That is especially so in this case because the Secretary of State for Social Security is one of the Government's best debaters. We all know that if the Government, despite their fright, get away with this, there will be another year, another series of negotiations, in which the Secretary of State will have to give as well as take. The Secretary of State knows that if

he beats the employers by imposing these additional costs on them he will be able to come back on another occasion and increase the burden. The crucial commitment that was made is being broken. That is what we shall be voting about tonight, although we shall do so for differing reasons.
We have heard an awful lot from Opposition Members about small businesses. I am pleased about that. I wonder whether many people outside will regard the remarks as more than skin-deep. I hope that they were. Albeit with different motives, we are joining forces with people whose views we sometimes do not share. We are doing so because there is an important principle at stake. For Opposition Members, there are badges of citizenship that can very quickly be destroyed. The consequences of that destruction may not be felt immediately, but in the long term they may be seen in the form of social strife. Government Members have referred to the importance of small businesses and to the unfairness of putting the burden squarely on their shoulders so that other expenditure may be undertaken.
As I have said, there is in the House tonight a community of interests. For reasons that have been put forward by several hon. Members, I hope that we shall not simply support the amendments that have been forced on the Government by another place, but that we shall be able to persuade the Government to withdraw this squalid little measure—squalid not because the Secretary of State has in any way behaved dishonourably, but because there is a basic principle at stake. A commitment is being broken, and we are asking the poorest sections of the industrial world to bear the burden. There are hon. Members on both sides of the House who wish to ensure that this Bill will not go through.

Mr. John Browne: These are unusual times. The recession that we are experiencing is unusually deep—deeper than recessions that we have known before. It is amazing that the Government should choose such a time for this plan.
As the inflation rate drops, real interest rates are increasingly high, and rising by the week. In Winchester, Alton and other parts of the country, normally prudent people are being driven into bankruptcy. This is extremely serious. Indeed, the situation goes back well beyond the past decade. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State knows, I voted against our entry into the exchange rate mechanism because I believed that it would result in higher interest rates and higher unemployment than we would otherwise have. That is now happening. Interest rates are now dictated not by our own economy, which is calling hard, through deflation, for lower interest rates, but by our exchange rate. That is absolutely wrong.
Small businesses constitute one of the hardest-hit sections of our economy. The Government's measures to support small businesses have my absolute support. However—I have been put under considerable pressure not just to keep my speech short but not to speak at all —I must urge my right hon. Friend to withdraw this measure in view of our present very exceptional economic circumstances. The proposals should be withdrawn in the national interest.

Mr. Flynn: It is unfortunate that two hon. Members on the Government side were absent for the major part of the debate. Had they been here they would have heard not


ranting from either side but very reasoned debate, indicating a community of interests. It is a matter to which my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) referred. On this subject, my credentials are rather similar to those of my hon. Friend, in that my maiden speech, too, was on the virtue of the sale of council houses. I raised that subject as a member of a Labour local authority that had been selling its houses for 20 years.
We heard a very unpleasant, spleen-hacked, neurotic diatribe from the hon. Member from Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who managed to pack a smear into almost every syllable. It is unfortunate that the debate should be conducted in such a way. I commend to those hon. Members who have not read the report of the Lords debate that they do so in order that they might be made aware of the elevated quality of debate in that Chamber. As democrats we should adopt the decisions that were reached there.
It has been suggested again and again that all will be well if we throw employees to the wolves without statutory sick pay. It has been argued that they are already protected. Let us get the position exactly right. The report of the Institute for Fiscal Studies has been misunderstood by The Times. The IFS did not say that 91 per cent. of employees are covered by sick pay schemes; it said only that 91 per cent. of all employees work for employers in whose cases some people are in some circumstances covered by sick pay schemes. What is the truth? For those working in dangerous occupations, the situation is even worse. For those working in low-paid occupations, it is far worse. The Secretary of State said that we did not have to worry. He made the point that in the early stages of a job —the first few weeks—people do not very often go off sick. In fact, such people are the very ones who are often involved in serious accidents at work and who are therefore likely to need sick pay.
The citizens advice bureaux carried out a trawl, the findings of which contradict the rather rosy picture that has been presented by Government Members. The bureaux found that far more problems are now arising because of employment difficulties. Members of Parliament are aware of that. The bureaux refer to a Nottinghamshire case in which an employer considered a client's pregnancy to have been self-inflicted and refused to pay her SSP. In Devonshire, a client who had worked for eight months as a night care assistant had to go into hospital. When the employer, having been contacted by the DSS, eventually returned the SSP form he stated that the woman was no longer employed by him and that therefore she was not entitled to SSP. In Hertfordshire, in the space of one month, seven employers refused to pay SSP to clients who were eligible for it. In Shropshire, a person who lived in tied accommodation was dismissed after two weeks of sickness and received no SSP. In Buckinghamshire, in a five-week period, there were five cases of employers failing to pay SSP. A deeper trawl will show hundreds of such cases.
It is not true to say, as the Secretary Secretary of State did, that there is some quid pro quo between the advantage to employers of lower contributions to national insurance and what will happen under the Bill. There is no linkage. All employers will benefit from the national insurance changes, but only employers unfortunate enough to have much sickness among their employees will suffer because of the Bill. We are placing a burden on employers, and the

Bill will be a disincentive for them to employ disabled people or those whom they perceive as likely to suffer from long periods of sickness.
7 pm
The hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) referred to Henry VIII, and many of us would query her picture of him as a model parent and husband. The other place threw out the worst feature of the "Henry VIII clause". We have heard from courageous Conservative Members, employers' associations and trade unions a hallelujah chorus of protest against the idiocy of the Bill.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Is my hon. Friend aware that the Bill is causing tremendous anxiety in Scotland? I have received a letter from Bill Knox, who is a well-known campaigner on behalf of the small business federations in Scotland. He says:
The Government are pushing through a new Bill on S.S.P. which will destroy the principle that the State pays Statutory Benefits to employees.
Most organisations in Scotland are absolutely opposed to this stupid, silly measure that the Government have thought up.

Mr. Flynn: I am delighted to hear that the Scottish singers in the hallelujah chorus are in harmony with the rest of the country.
The Bill is discredited, wretched and friendless and we should throw it out.

Mr. Allen McKay: I place on record the views not of the employers' federations but of a small factory in my constituency which faces bankruptcy. The work force believed that they could make the business work, took it over and made it work. They phoned me today and said that if the Bill is passed it will probably shove them over the brink.
It is the principle that matters. Not only have the Government broken a promise, but they have had the effrontery to jeopardise the future of the scheme. Subsections (2) and (3) of clause 1 give the Government power to alter it without reference to the House, and that is wrong.
We are seeing a change in Government policy. The Secretary of State is always talking about the employers' contribution to the scheme. A good employer always added to the state provision for his work force, but the Government are now legislating for an alternative. The Government see occupational pension schemes as the future; employees and employers will pay, but the state will back out of its obligation to look after sick and retired people. That is what the Bill is all about. If the House has any common sense, it will throw out the Bill or, at worst, accept the Lords amendments.

Ms. Short: This is a dishonourable Bill which has been introduced in a dishonourable way. I am sorry to say that to the Secretary of State. I know that he is not a dishonourable man, but the record speaks for itself.
The Bill is a complete breach of the agreement made between the Government and employers' organisations, after considerable discussion and debate, that when statutory sick pay was introduced there would be 100 per cent. reimbursement and that the costs of administering the scheme would be repaid. That promise has been


breached, and there is a sense of fury about that among employers' organisations. The hon. Member for Devon, North (Mr. Speller) rightly said that integrity is involved. The Government have broken their word.
The Secretary of State gave three examples in which the employer would gain. I am afraid that that argument is dishonourable. We know that the package involves a saving. Any gains therefore mean other and larger losses elsewhere. To try to impress his hon. Friends, who are clearly disturbed about the Bill, with three examples of gainers when he knew that there must be more losers than gainers was dishonourable.
The Government knew that they had to be furtive about the Bill, which was brought before the House with indecent haste. It was given a Second Reading on a Monday and its Committee stage was held on the Floor of the House on the Wednesday. We know the purpose of that: the Government did not want to allow employers' organisations time to mobilise. They had fought before on the issue and would fight again. The Government fixed the business of the House so that they could not do so, which is why the brunt of the opposition to the Bill was expressed in the other place. That was another dishonourable act by the Government.
The Bill affects the interests of not only employers but workers. The change being made is part of a package of serious cuts in sick pay for employees. The uprating removes 3 million employees from eligibility for the higher rate of statutory sick pay. As a result, some 600,000 people stand to lose an average of £9 a week when they are sick, in addition to the 300,000 who will lose £13 a week as a result of the changes in sick pay entitlement that will take effect in April. No fewer than 5 million people have had their entitlement to statutory sick pay reduced in the past two years. That is an uncivilised move. If we live in a caring society that offers a decent standard of living, we should at least guarantee that if any of us have to take time off work because of sickness we shall be cared for and not forced on to means-tested benefits, with all the worries that that causes when another member of the family is working.
The whole move, which is part of a plan to privatise sick pay, is deeply regressive. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) pointed out, this proposal was made under the old Thatcherite Government, but this Government have not had time to throw it away. There is no doubt but that the best way of ensuring that everyone is protected is a national insurance scheme.
The Government want to privatise, and to do so they misuse statistics—this is another dishonourable feature —by saying that 91 per cent. of employees work for firms that offer an occupational sick pay scheme. That is a deeply dishonest figure. A firm that employed thousands of manual workers but offered a small scheme only to senior management would be included in that statistic. It is outrageous and misleading, but I am sorry to say that the Secretary of State keeps using it.
Occupational sick pay schemes build on state provision. Someone who is lucky enough to be in an occupational sickness scheme negotiates with his employer for him to build on the national insurance system.
The change has been made, apart from the questionable ideology behind it, because the Secretary of State was pressurised in the expenditure round. He had to do

something with child benefit because it was becoming such an embarrassment. He found a little bit of money for the first born instead of uprating the benefit properly. I know that he has been concerned to do something for low-income elderly pensioners, but the Treasury would not give him anything and said, "If you want to increase child benefit, you must pay with something else out of your budget." Therefore, reluctantly, he gave up statutory sick pay and was forced into all the dishonour that we are discussing.
What is wrong is all the restraint imposed on the Secretary of State by other people. I respect him enough to think that if he was in control of these matters, things might be different; perhaps that is being over-trusting. Here the sick are being required to pay for benefits for the elderly and for children. That is wrong. Under the Government we have seen massive redistribution. If we accumulate the benefits and tax changes, what has happened? Up to 1989, £6·5 billion has been taken from the bottom 50 per cent. of the population and £4·6 billion of it has been given to the top 5 per cent. That is what it is all about. The Government have given away so much to the very rich in society that they have to take money from the sick for child benefit because they are so deeply embarrassed by their failure to improve it in the past.
All of this comes during the most frightening recession which is not being discussed politically because we are all preoccupied with the situation in the Gulf. The figures, which are coming in sharp and hard, and the personal experiences make the recession look as bad as that in 1980–81. I hope and pray that it will not be as bad. That recession destroyed my region and my constituency, and I hope that the same will not happen again. Firms are going bust all over the land. I cannot believe that Lewis's, where I went as a child to see Father Christmas, has gone.
The changes in statutory sick pay will come on top of the recession. They will tip some firms over. The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls) makes an art form out of nastiness—that is not intended as a compliment. I do not know how it is in his part of the world, but in Ladywood vast numbers of people who run small businesses vote Labour. Whether Afro-Caribbean, Asian or white, their interests lie with the well-being of the local community. Their children are local, unemployed young people; they worry about local schools; they are Labour voters in significant numbers.
I was surprised when my hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) went along with the line put forward by the hon. Member for Teignbridge. Perhaps things are different in Birkenhead, but certainly in Ladywood many small business men vote Labour and are members of the Labour party. The hon. Member for Teignbridge is an ideologist. He has forgotten that the former leader, the one who would be impressed with his style of speech, is not in office any more. We are supposed to pretend that the Tory party is in favour of a classless society, as we screw the people who are sick in order to pay benefits to the elderly and the poor.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Ms. Short: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. If he changed his behaviour when people give way, I would think of doing so.

Mr. Nicholls: Give way and see.

Ms. Short: I do not believe it; I have seen the hon. Gentleman perform too often.
My hon. Friends and I agree with small businesses, the interests of people who are sick and the other place that the Bill should be withdrawn. If it is not, we shall support the amendments that were made in the other place which would at least improve the Bill somewhat.
The other insidious thing in the package is that when the Bill started, the Government took the power by negative resolution of the House to change the 80 per cent. rate. Clearly the plan was to keep reducing it. We moved an amendment to make the change by affirmative resolution and the Government accepted that. When the Bill got to the other place, they said that there had to be separate legislation. Of course, the Government hated that because it stopped the privatisation package, but they could hardly change it when it came back here without saying to the world, "Our plan is revealed." Reluctantly, they had to give in. We welcome that.
We support the amendment made in the other place that this should be a cost neutral package, we support the 91 per cent. provision that the Government have rejected, and we support the provisions made in the other place to protect small businesses, which are more generous than the measly proposals that the Secretary of State put before the House.
I am sorry to have had to put the case of dishonour to the right hon. Gentleman, but I believe it to be true. That is what we are considering this evening.

Mr. Newton: I shall be exceptionally brief for reasons which I hope the House will understand. I have already spoken at great length and I answered a huge number of points that were put to me during my opening speech.
I have made it clear to my hon. Friends that I recognise, even though I do not always agree with, some of the anxieties they have expressed. The combination of measures which I have brought forward, including the additional safeguard for small businesses, generously defined, in respect of periods of sickness going beyond six weeks, goes a long way to meet their concerns. Taken together with the fact that has emerged from some comments from the Opposition Benches that many small employers do not have occupational sick pay schemes and therefore will not be affected in the same way as those who do, the combination of facts leads me to believe that there are proper and appropriate safeguards which will ensure that large numbers of small businesses gain and will not lose from the package of proposals which I have put forward.
7.15 pm
I wish to make only one or two other points. I hope that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Ladywood (Ms. Short) will regret in due course the persistent use of words such as "dishonour" and "dishonourable". I will not quarrel with her at length, but this enables me to wrap up almost everything that I want to say to Opposition Members. I see nothing dishonourable, in a context in which there are endless demands for additional social security spending on many good causes, in being prepared to look across the scene to identify the areas where changes have taken place since the beginning of the welfare state and to make sure that we are spending the money which we can make available, however much it is, in the best way that we can spend it.
I say to the hon. Members for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) that the growth of occupational sick pay schemes represents a big change in the perception of people about where the burdens of looking after short-term sickness should lie. Employers have accepted a greater share of that burden. In those circumstances, I welcome the opportunity and the scope to divert more of the resources which I can make available from the taxpayer and the contributer to the poorer pensioners who do not have much money, to those in residential care and nursing homes and to the long-term sick and disabled.
I will not accept that that is dishonourable. I will not apologise for it. I think that this is a sensible package, improved by the amendments that I have proposed, and I commend it to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 1 and 2 agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Lords amendment No. 3: In page 1, line 14, leave out "80" and insert "91"

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Newton.]

The House divided: Ayes 316, Noes 236.

Division No. 57]
[7.17 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chope, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Atkins, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David
Conway, Derek


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack, Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Critchley, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Curry, David


Benyon, W.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Favell, Tony


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Budgen, Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Burns, Simon
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Sir Marcus


Butler, Chris
Franks, Cecil


Butterfill, John
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
French, Douglas






Fry, Pete
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gardiner, Sir George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maclean, David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Madel, David


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maples, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marland, Paul


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Ground, Patrick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Miller, Sir Hal


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Miscampbell, Norman


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayes, Jerry
Moate, Roger


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayward, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mudd, David


Hill, James
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hind, Kenneth
Needham, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nelson, Anthony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Norris, Steve


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Page, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Paice, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Irvine, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Irving, Sir Charles
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Janman, Tim
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jessel, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Price, Sir David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Redwood, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kirkhope, Timothy
Riddick, Graham


Knapman, Roger
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shelton, Sir William





Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Summerson, Hugo
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Tom Sackville.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Cousins, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cox, Tom


Armstrong, Hilary
Crowther, Stan


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Bellotti, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joseph
Eadie, Alexander


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foulkes, George


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Buckley, George J.
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Loyden, Eddie


Grocott, Bruce
McAllion, John


Hardy, Peter
McAvoy, Thomas


Haynes, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Macdonald, Calum A.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
McFall, John


Hinchliffe, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
McKelvey, William


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
McLeish, Henry


Home Robertson, John
Maclennan, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McNamara, Kevin


Howells, Geraint
McWilliam, John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Madden, Max


Hoyle, Doug
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Marek, Dr John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Illsley, Eric
Martlew, Eric


Ingram, Adam
Maxton, John


Janner, Greville
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Johnston, Sir Russell
Meacher, Michael


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Meale, Alan


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Michael, Alun


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Kennedy, Charles
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Kilfedder, James
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kirkwood, Archy
Morley, Elliot


Lambie, David
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Lamond, James
Mowlam, Marjorie


Leadbitter, Ted
Mullin, Chris


Leighton, Ron
Murphy, Paul


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Nellist, Dave


Lewis, Terry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Litherland, Robert
O'Brien, William


Livingstone, Ken
O'Hara, Edward


Livsey, Richard
O'Neill, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Parry, Robert

.—(1) In section 9 of the Social Security and Housing Benefits Act 1982, before subsection (2) (meaning of "contributions payments") there shall be inserted—

"(1B) For the purposes of this section, a payment of statutory sick pay which an employer is liable to make to an employee for any day qualifies for small employers' relief if the employer is a small employer who has before that day been liable to make such payments of statutory sick pay as entitle him to relief in respect of that payment.
(1C) For the purposes of this section, "small employer" shall be defined by regulations by reference to the aggregate of the employer's and the employee's contributions payments for any prescribed period, such aggregate to be reviewed annually having regard to the increase in earnings and the effect of any such increase on the amount of contributions payments.
(1D) Regulations shall prescribe the payments of statutory sick pay that entitle a small employer to small employer's relief in respect of any particular payment, and that entitlement shall be determined by reference to the number of weeks for which the employer has been liable to pay statutory sick pay in respect of the employee in question in a prescribed period.
(1E) The first regulations made under this section shall prescribe that the amount of the aggregate of the employer's and the employee's contributions payments, and the number of weeks for which the employer has been liable to pay statutory sick pay in respect of the employee in question shall be in accordance with the following table:—

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords amendment accordingly disagreed to.

Lords amendments Nos. 4 to 6 agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Lords amendment No. 7: After clause 1, insert the following new clause—Small employers' relief—

Read a Second time.

Amendment (a) proposed to the Lords amendment, in line 7, leave out from 'day' to end of line 35 and insert—
`which forms part of a period of incapacity for work qualifies for small employers' relief if—

(a) on that day the employer is a small employer who has been liable to pay statutory sick pay in respect of that employee for earlier days forming part of that period of incapacity for work; and
(b) the aggregate amount of those payments exceeds the entitlement threshold, that is to say an amount equal to W x R, where—

W is a prescribed number of weeks; and
R is the appropriate weekly rate set out in section above;

and regulations may make provision for calculating the entitlement threshold in any case where the employee's entitlement to statutory sick pay is calculated by reference to different weekly rates in the same period of incapacity for work.

(1C) If the Secretary of State by order so provides for any tax year, the following subsections shall have effect for that tax year in substitution for subsection (1B) above—

"(1BB) For the purposes of this section, a payment of statutory sick pay which an employer is liable to make to an employee for any day in a tax year qualifies for small employers' relief if—

(a) on that day the employer is a small employer who has been liable to make payments of statutory sick pay for earlier days in that tax year in respect of any employees of his; and
(b) the aggregate of any such payments for those earlier days exceeds a prescribed sum.

(1BC) In any case where—

(a) an employer is liable to make two or more payments of statutory sick pay for the same day in a tax year, and
(b) by virtue of the condition in subsection (1BB)(b) above, none of those payments would qualify for small employers' relief, but
(c) that condition would have been fulfilled in relation to a proportion of the aggregate amount of those payments, had he been liable—

(i) to pay as statutory sick pay for an earlier day in that tax year, instead of for the day in question, the smallest part of that aggregate that would enable that condition to be fulfilled, and
(ii) to pay the remainder as statutory sick pay for the day in question,

he shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1BB) above

Aggregate contributions in the previous contributions year
Number of weeks before small employers' relief applies


less than £15,000
6


less than £10,000
3


less than £5,000
0

(1F) A statutory instrument containing (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations under subsection (1C) or (1D) above shall not be made unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House."

(2) In subsection (2) of that section (meaning of "contributions payments" in subsections (1)(a) and (1A)) for the words "and subsection (1A)" there shall be substituted the words "and subsection (1C)".
(3) In Part II of Schedule 5 to the Social Security Act 1986 (questions for the Secretary of State) in paragraph (b), after sub-paragraph (v) there shall be inserted the words "or

(vi) the amount of an employer's contributions payments for any period for the purposes of regulations under section 9(1C) of that Act.""

as if he had been liable to make payments of statutory sick pay as mentioned in paragraph (c) above instead of as mentioned in paragraph (a) above.

(1BD) If, in a case not falling within subsection (1BC) above—

(a) an employer is liable to make a single payment of statutory sick pay for a day in a tax year, and
(b) by virtue of the condition in subsection (1BB)(b) above, that payment would not qualify for small employers' relief, but
(c) that condition would have been fulfilled in relation to a proportion of that payment, had he been liable—

(i) to pay as statutory sick pay for an earlier day in that tax year, instead of for the day in question, the smallest part of that payment that would enable that condition to be fulfilled, and
(ii) to pay the remainder as statutory sick pay for the day in question,

he shall be treated for the purposes of subsection (1BB) above as if he had been liable to make payments of statutory sick pay as mentioned in paragraph (c) above instead of the payment mentioned in paragraph (a) above.";

and, without prejudice to section 45(1) below, the Secretary of State may by regulations make such transitional or consequential
provision or savings as he considers necessary or expedient in connection with the coming into force of an order under this subsection of the expiry or revocation of any such order and the consequent revival of subsection (1B) above.
(1D) For the purposes of this section, "small employer" shall have the meaning assigned to it by regulations, and, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, any such regulations—

(a) may define that expression by reference to the amount of an employer's contributions payments for any prescribed period; and
(b) if they do so, may in that connection make provision for the amount of those payments for that prescribed period—

(i) to be determined without regard to any deductions that may be made from them under this section or under any other enactment or instrument; and
(ii) in prescribed circumstances, to be adjusted, estimated or otherwise attributed to him by reference to their amount in any other prescribed period.

(1E) If and so long as regulations under subsection (1D) above prescribe an amount which an employer's contributions payments must not exceed if he is to be a small employer for the purposes of this section, the Secretary of State shall in each tax year consider whether that amount should be increased, having regard to any increase in the aggregate amount of all primary and secondary Class 1 contributions payable in Great Britain and such other matters as he considers appropriate.'.—[Mr. Newton.]

Question put,That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 318, Noes 233.

Division No. 57]
[7.17 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)


Aitken, Jonathan
Carrington, Matthew


Alexander, Richard
Carttiss, Michael


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cash, William


Allason, Rupert
Chapman, Sydney


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Chope, Christopher


Amos, Alan
Churchill, Mr


Arbuthnot, James
Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)


Ashby, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Aspinwall, Jack
Clark, Rt Hon Sir William


Atkins, Robert
Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)


Atkinson, David
Conway, Derek


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Baldry, Tony
Cope, Rt Hon John


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Cormack, Patrick


Batiste, Spencer
Couchman, James


Bellingham, Henry
Critchley, Julian


Bendall, Vivian
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Curry, David


Benyon, W.
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Day, Stephen


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Devlin, Tim


Body, Sir Richard
Dickens, Geoffrey


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Dorrell, Stephen


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Boswell, Tim
Dunn, Bob


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Sir Anthony


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Dykes, Hugh


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Eggar, Tim


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Emery, Sir Peter


Bowis, John
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Evennett, David


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fallon, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Favell, Tony


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Fishburn, John Dudley


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Fookes, Dame Janet


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Forman, Nigel


Buck, Sir Antony
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Budgen, Nicholas
Forth, Eric


Burns, Simon
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Burt, Alistair
Fox, Sir Marcus


Butler, Chris
Franks, Cecil


Butterfill, John
Freeman, Roger


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
French, Douglas






Fry, Pete
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Gale, Roger
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Gardiner, Sir George
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Garel-Jones, Tristan
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian
Maclean, David


Glyn, Dr Sir Alan
McLoughlin, Patrick


Goodhart, Sir Philip
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Goodlad, Alastair
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Madel, David


Gorst, John
Malins, Humfrey


Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)
Mans, Keith


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Maples, John


Greenway, John (Ryedale)
Marland, Paul


Gregory, Conal
Marlow, Tony


Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Grist, Ian
Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)


Ground, Patrick
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Grylls, Michael
Mates, Michael


Hague, William
Maude, Hon Francis


Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Hanley, Jeremy
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Hannam, John
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')
Miller, Sir Hal


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Miscampbell, Norman


Harris, David
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Haselhurst, Alan
Mitchell, Sir David


Hayes, Jerry
Moate, Roger


Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Monro, Sir Hector


Hayward, Robert
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael
Morrison, Sir Charles


Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)
Moss, Malcolm


Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Mudd, David


Hill, James
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hind, Kenneth
Needham, Richard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Nelson, Anthony


Hordern, Sir Peter
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Norris, Steve


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Page, Richard


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Paice, James


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Irvine, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Irving, Sir Charles
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Janman, Tim
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Jessel, Toby
Porter, David (Waveney)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Price, Sir David


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Raffan, Keith


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


Key, Robert
Redwood, John


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Rhodes James, Robert


Kirkhope, Timothy
Riddick, Graham


Knapman, Roger
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knowles, Michael
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Knox, David
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Rost, Peter


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Lawrence, Ivan
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Lee, John (Pendle)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shelton, Sir William





Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Tredinnick, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Trippier, David


Shersby, Michael
Trotter, Neville


Sims, Roger
Twinn, Dr Ian


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Viggers, Peter


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Walden, George


Speed, Keith
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)
Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Waller, Gary


Squire, Robin
Walters, Sir Dennis


Stanbrook, Ivor
Ward, John


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Steen, Anthony
Warren, Kenneth


Stern, Michael
Watts, John


Stevens, Lewis
Wells, Bowen


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Wheeler, Sir John


Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)
Whitney, Ray


Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)
Widdecombe, Ann


Sumberg, David
Wiggin, Jerry


Summerson, Hugo
Wilkinson, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Wilshire, David


Taylor, Ian (Esher)
Wolfson, Mark


Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)
Wood, Timothy


Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Temple-Morris, Peter
Yeo, Tim


Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)
Younger, Rt Hon George


Thorne, Neil



Thurnham, Peter
Tellers for the Ayes:


Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Tracey, Richard
Mr. Tom Sackville.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Allen, Graham
Corbett, Robin


Alton, David
Corbyn, Jeremy


Anderson, Donald
Cousins, Jim


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Cox, Tom


Armstrong, Hilary
Crowther, Stan


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cryer, Bob


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Cummings, John


Ashton, Joe
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Dalyell, Tam


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Darling, Alistair


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Barron, Kevin
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Battle, John
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Beckett, Margaret
Dewar, Donald


Beith, A. J.
Dixon, Don


Bell, Stuart
Douglas, Dick


Bellotti, David
Duffy, A. E. P.


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joseph
Eadie, Alexander


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Bidwell, Sydney
Fatchett, Derek


Blair, Tony
Faulds, Andrew


Boateng, Paul
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Bradley, Keith
Fisher, Mark


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Flynn, Paul


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Foster, Derek


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Foulkes, George


Browne, John (Winchester)
Fraser, John


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Fyfe, Maria


Buckley, George J.
Galbraith, Sam


Caborn, Richard
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Callaghan, Jim
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
George, Bruce


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gordon, Mildred


Canavan, Dennis
Gould, Bryan


Cartwright, John
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clelland, David
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)






Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Loyden, Eddie


Grocott, Bruce
McAllion, John


Hardy, Peter
McAvoy, Thomas


Haynes, Frank
McCartney, Ian


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Macdonald, Calum A.


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
McFall, John


Hinchliffe, David
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
McKelvey, William


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
McLeish, Henry


Home Robertson, John
Maclennan, Robert


Hood, Jimmy
McMaster, Gordon


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
McNamara, Kevin


Howells, Geraint
McWilliam, John


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Madden, Max


Hoyle, Doug
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Marek, Dr John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Illsley, Eric
Martlew, Eric


Ingram, Adam
Maxton, John


Janner, Greville
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Johnston, Sir Russell
Meacher, Michael


Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)
Meale, Alan


Jones, Ieuan (Ynys Môn)
Michael, Alun


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)


Kennedy, Charles
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Kilfedder, James
Molyneaux, Rt Hon James


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Kirkwood, Archy
Morley, Elliot


Lambie, David
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Lamond, James
Mowlam, Marjorie


Leadbitter, Ted
Mullin, Chris


Leighton, Ron
Murphy, Paul


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Nellist, Dave


Lewis, Terry
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Litherland, Robert
O'Brien, William


Livingstone, Ken
O'Hara, Edward


Livsey, Richard
O'Neill, Martin


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Parry, Robert




Patchett, Terry
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Snape, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Soley, Clive


Pike, Peter L.
Spearing, Nigel


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Speller, Tony


Prescott, John
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Primarolo, Dawn
Steinberg, Gerry


Quin, Ms Joyce
Stott, Roger


Radice, Giles
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Randall, Stuart
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Reid, Dr John
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Richardson, Jo
Trimble, David


Robertson, George
Turner, Dennis


Robinson, Geoffrey
Wallace, James


Rooker, Jeff
Walley, Joan


Rooney, Terence
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Wareing, Robert N.


Rowlands, Ted
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Ruddock, Joan
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Salmond, Alex
Wigley, Dafydd


Sedgemore, Brian
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Sheerman, Barry
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wilson, Brian


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Winnick, David


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Winterton, Nicholas


Short, Clare
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Sillars, Jim
Worthington, Tony


Skinner, Dennis
Wray, Jimmy


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)



Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Tellers for the Noes:


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Mr. Ken Eastham.

Division No. 58]
[7.32 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Couchman, James


Aitken, Jonathan
Critchley, Julian


Alexander, Richard
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Curry, David


Allason, Rupert
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Amess, David
Day, Stephen


Amos, Alan
Devlin, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Dickens, Geoffrey


Arnold, Sir Thomas
Dorrell, Stephen


Ashby, David
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Aspinwall, Jack
Dunn, Bob


Atkins, Robert
Durant, Sir Anthony


Atkinson, David
Dykes, Hugh


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Eggar, Tim


Baldry, Tony
Emery, Sir Peter


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'd)


Batiste, Spencer
Evennett, David


Bellingham, Henry
Fallon, Michael


Bendall, Vivian
Favell, Tony


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Benyon, W.
Fishburn, John Dudley


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fookes, Dame Janet


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Forman, Nigel


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Body, Sir Richard
Forth, Eric


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Fox, Sir Marcus


Boswell, Tim
Franks, Cecil


Bottomley, Peter
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
French, Douglas


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Fry, Peter


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gale, Roger


Bowis, John
Gardiner, Sir George


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Brazier, Julian
Glyn, Dr Sir Alan


Bright, Graham
Goodlad, Alastair


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Grant, Sir Anthony (CambsSW)


Buck, Sir Antony
Green way, Harry (Ealing N)


Budgen, Nicholas
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burns, Simon
Gregory, Conal


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)


Butler, Chris
Grist, Ian


Butterfill, John
Ground, Patrick


Carlisle, John, (Luton N)
Grylls, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hague, William


Carrington, Matthew
Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom)


Cash, William
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda
Hampson, Dr Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Hanley, Jeremy


Chope, Christopher
Hannam, John


Churchill, Mr
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Clark, Rt Hon Alan (Plymouth)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Harris, David


Clark, Rt Hon Sir William
Haselhurst, Alan


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hayes, Jerry


Conway, Derek
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Hayward, Robert


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Cope, Rt Hon John
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)





Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)
Moss, Malcolm


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Hill, James
Mudd, David


Hind, Kenneth
Neale, Sir Gerrard


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Needham, Richard


Hordern, Sir Peter
Nelson, Anthony


Howard, Rt Hon Michael
Neubert, Sir Michael


Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)
Newton, Rt Hon Tony


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Nicholls, Patrick


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Norris, Steve


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Oppenheim, Phillip


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Page, Richard


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Paice, James


Irvine, Michael
Patnick, Irvine


Irving, Sir Charles
Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)


Jack, Michael
Patten, Rt Hon John


Jackson, Robert
Pawsey, James


Janman, Tim
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Jessel, Toby
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Porter, David (Waveney)


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Portillo, Michael


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Powell, William (Corby)


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Price, Sir David


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Raffan, Keith


Key, Robert
Raison, Rt Hon Sir Timothy


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Redwood, John


King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rhodes James, Robert


Knapman, Roger
Riddick, Graham


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Knowles, Michael
Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm


Knox, David
Roberts, Sir Wyn (Conwy)


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Roe, Mrs Marion


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Rost, Peter


Lawrence, Ivan
Rowe, Andrew


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Rumbold, Rt Hon Mrs Angela


Lee, John (Pendle)
Ryder, Rt Hon Richard


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Sayeed, Jonathan


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas


Lilley, Peter
Shaw, David (Dover)


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lord, Michael
Shelton, Sir William


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Shersby, Michael


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Sims, Roger


Maclean, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


McLoughlin, Patrick
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Madel, David
Speed, Keith


Malins, Humfrey
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Mans, Keith
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maples, John
Squire, Robin


Marland, Paul
Stanbrook, Ivor


Marlow, Tony
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Steen, Anthony


Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)
Stern, Michael


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Stevens, Lewis


Mates, Michael
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Maude, Hon Francis
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Stewart, Rt Hon Ian (Herts N)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Sumberg, David


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Summerson, Hugo


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Miller, Sir Hal
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Miscampbell, Norman
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Mitchell, Sir David
Temple-Morris, Peter


Moate, Roger
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Monro, Sir Hector
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Thorne, Neil


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Thurnham, Peter


Morrison, Sir Charles
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)






Tracey, Richard
Wells, Bowen


Tredinnick, David
Wheeler, Sir John


Trotter, Neville
Whitney, Ray


Twinn, Dr Ian
Widdecombe, Ann


Vaughan, Sir Gerard
Wiggin, Jerry


Viggers, Peter
Wilkinson, John


Wakeham, Rt Hon John
Wilshire, David


Waldegrave, Rt Hon William
Wolfson, Mark


Walden, George
Wood, Timothy


Walker, Bill (T'side North)
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)
Yeo, Tim


Waller, Gary
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Walters, Sir Dennis
Younger, Rt Hon George


Ward, John



Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Warren, Kenneth
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Watts, John
Mr. Tom Sackville.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dixon, Don


Adams, Mrs. Irene (Paisley, N.)
Douglas, Dick


Allen, Graham
Duffy, A. E. P.


Alton, David
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Anderson, Donald
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Eadie, Alexander


Armstrong, Hilary
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Fatchett, Derek


Ashton, Joe
Faulds, Andrew


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Fisher, Mark


Barron, Kevin
Flynn, Paul


Battle, John
Foot, Rt Hon Michael


Beckett, Margaret
Foster, Derek


Beith, A. J.
Foulkes, George


Bell, Stuart
Fraser, John


Bellotti, David
Fyfe, Maria


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Galbraith, Sam


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Garrett, John (Norwich South)


Benton, Joseph
Garrett, Ted (Wallsend)


Bermingham, Gerald
George, Bruce


Bevan, David Gilroy
Golding, Mrs Llin


Bidwell, Sydney
Gordon, Mildred


Blair, Tony
Gould, Bryan


Boateng, Paul
Graham, Thomas


Boyes, Roland
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Bradley, Keith
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Grocott, Bruce


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hardy, Peter


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Haynes, Frank


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Buckley, George J.
Healey, Rt Hon Denis


Caborn, Richard
Hinchliffe, David


Callaghan, Jim
Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Home Robertson, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Hood, Jimmy


Canavan, Dennis
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Howells, Geraint


Cartwright, John
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Hoyle, Doug


Clelland, David
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Corbett, Robin
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Illsley, Eric


Cousins, Jim
Ingram, Adam


Cox, Tom
Janner, Greville


Crowther, Stan
Johnston, Sir Russell


Cryer, Bob
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Cummings, John
Jones, leuan (Ynys Môn)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Dalyell, Tam
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Darling, Alistair
Kennedy, Charles


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Kilfedder, James


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Kirkwood, Archy


Dewar, Donald
Lambie, David





Lamond, James
Quin, Ms Joyce


Leadbitter, Ted
Radice, Giles


Leighton, Ron
Randall, Stuart


Lestor, Joan (Eccles)
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Lewis, Terry
Reid, Dr John


Litherland, Robert
Richardson, Jo


Livingstone, Ken
Robertson, George


Livsey, Richard
Robinson, Geoffrey


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Rooker, Jeff


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Rooney, Terence


Loyden, Eddie
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


McAllion, John
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Ruddock, Joan


McCartney, Ian
Salmond, Alex


Macdonald, Calum A.
Sedgemore, Brian


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McKelvey, William
Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)


McLeish, Henry
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Maclennan, Robert
Short, Clare


McMaster, Gordon
Sillars, Jim


McNamara, Kevin
Skinner, Dennis


McWilliam, John
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Madden, Max
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Marek, Dr John
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Marshall, David (Shettloston)
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Snape, Peter


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Spearing, Nigel


Maxton, John
Speller, Tony


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Meacher, Michael
Steinberg, Gerry


Meale, Alan
Stott, Roger


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Michael, Alun
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Arg'l &amp; Bute)
Thomas, Dr Dafydd Elis


Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)
Trimble, David


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Turner, Dennis


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wallace, James


Morley, Elliot
Walley, Joan


Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Wareing, Robert N.


Mullin, Chris
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Murphy, Paul
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Nellist, Dave
Wigley, Dafydd


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


O'Brien, William
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


O'Hara, Edward
Wilson, Brian


O'Neill, Martin
Winnick, David


Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Winterton, Nicholas


Parry, Robert
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Patchett, Terry
Worthington, Tony


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Wray, Jimmy


Pendry, Tom



Pike, Peter L.
Tellers for the Noes:


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Mr. Jack Thompson and


Prescott, John
Mr. Ken Eastham.


Primarolo, Dawn

Question accordingly agreed to.

Amendments (b) and (c) to the Lords amendment agreed to.

Lords amendment, as amended, agreed to.—[Special entry.]

Lords amendments Nos. 8 and 9 agreed to.

Ordered,
That a Committee be appointed to draw up a reason to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to their amendment No. 3.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Ordered,
That Mr. Secretary Newton, Mr. Nicholas Scott, Mr. Irvine Patnick, Mr. Alfred Morris and Mr. Allen McKay be members of the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Ordered,
That three be the quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Ordered,
That the Committee do withdraw immediately.—[Mr. Chapman.]

Reason for disagreeing to one of the Lords amendments reported, and agreed to; to be communicated to the Lords.

Namibia Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Overseas Development (Mrs. Lynda Chalker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to modify existing legislation to place Namibia on an equal footing with other Commonwealth countries for the purposes of United Kingdom law. It is a relatively uncontentious process—at least I hope that it is. However, the Bill gives us an opportunity to consider Namibia's achievements as it approaches the first anniversary of its independence and its membership of the Commonwealth.
For me and many hon. Members on both sides of the House, this is a happy occasion when we can welcome the 50th member of the Commonwealth. It is also probably the best time for me to be involved in such a Bill, as I returned last Saturday from my first visit to Windhoek. I was delighted to meet President Nujoma and present to him the Government's gift to independent Namibia of a parliamentary mace. It was a suitable gift. Namibia has sincerely and enthusiastically embraced the way of parliamentary democracy. It is already demonstrating to other countries in the region that democracy is the best way to stability and prosperity.
Namibia is also determined to end the hostilities that divided the country before independence. It is pursuing a policy of national reconciliation designed to ensure that there is a place in its new society for all Namibians, regardless of their previous loyalties. Those policies are well worthy of support. Therefore, we have built up a sound working relationship with the President and the new Government. Our aid programme is an important element in that relationship. We have pledged £10 million over three years, which is to be devoted to police training, education, health, and, indeed, other projects.
Our assistance is designed to encourage good government, accountability and cost-effective use of resources. At President Nujoma's request, and outside the £10 million package of aid, we are also helping to train the Namibian army, providing vital support to maintain law and order and achieve the stability which is essential for sound development. We can be justly proud of our military training team which is training soldiers in many parts of the country. I was pleased and privileged to meet several members of the British military advisory and training team in Namibia and to talk with Namibian soldiers from all over the country who expressed, with increasing firmness of grasp of the English language, their pleasure and indeed their appreciation of what they were gaining from training with the British Army.
The Bill follows earlier precedents, the most recent of which was the Pakistan Act 1990. It covers Namibia's relationship with the Commonwealth Institute. It provides for Namibian forces to be included in the definition of "Commonwealth forces" so as to define their legal status, for example when training in the United Kingdom. It provides for the exercise of command and discipline when British and Commonwealth forces are serving together and for attachments of members of one force to another.
The Bill also ensures that regulatory powers applying to the whaling industry will not apply to ships registered in


Namibia, as it is not appropriate for those powers to extend to the shipping of independent members of the Commonwealth.
Clause 2(2) deems the measure to have come into force on 21 March 1990, the day Namibia achieved independence and became a member of the Commonwealth. There is no technical reason for that, but there is strong symbolic value in deeming the provisions of the measure to come into effect on Namibia's independence day. The immigration and electoral implications of Namibia's admission to the Commonwealth have been dealt with separately by an Order in Council which came into effect on 20 August 1990. That added Namibia to the list of Commonwealth countries in schedule 3 to the British Nationality Act 1981.
My two and a half days in Namibia made me happy because I could see a country coming to grips with many problems and new challenges but with an enthusiasm and willingness to learn that I have rarely seen anywhere before. It is right that we should help Namibia. We are at that vital time when we are sitting down together, with Ministers and with the director of the National Planning Commission, to work out how we can help the people of Namibia best in the way that they agree is what they want.
It is very much a partnership in development in Namibia, with its population of just over 1·6 million people, but a vast country which needs a lot of help from its friends. We are very much a friend of Namibia, and I was a warm friend of the Namibian people last week. They welcome us in every way in helping them along their new path as an independent country and a member of the Commonwealth.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: The Minister is right. The Bill is welcomed by hon. Members in all parts of the House. Its details are technical, but it marks an event of great importance. The independence of Namibia, celebrated on 21 March last year, was a great achievement for the international community, particularly for the United Nations and most of all for the Namibian people.
The months since independence have seen a remarkable attempt at reconciliation in a country wounded by years of war and division. The SWAPO Government have been resolutely pragmatic in pursuing their goal of national reconciliation, as the right hon. Lady said. Who would have imagined that a new police training college would be opened last February with 82 new recruits from SWAPO members and 90 former members of the securfity force Koevoet.
The determination with which the Government and people have set about healing divisions and rebuilding the country deserves great praise. But the magnitude of the task cannot be overestimated, as the Minister said. South African rulers have left behind widespread deprivation, gross inequality, unemployment, abysmally inadequate services in black areas, heavy dependence on mining, reliance on South African markets, debt and a massive budget deficit.
Whites represent 7 per cent. of the population yet receive 70 per cent. of the income. For every 1,000 births, 10 times as many black children die before their fifth birthday as white children. Under South African rule,

more than half of Namibia's GNP went to foreign companies in the South African administration. Only white children enjoyed free compulsory education. About 70 per cent. of Namibia's teachers lack the necessary basic qualifications to teach.
Now that independence has been achieved, the great potential of the economy must be developed for the benefit of the majority of Namibians. But the economy is distorted and fragile. The exodus of South African and then of the United Nations transition assistance group forces, and the return of 40,000 refugees, are to be welcomed, but they put great strains on Namibia's resources. The Government are aiming for annual economic growth of between 3 and 4 per cent., but current growth is stagnant, if not negative. A report by the International Monetary Fund says:
The nation has a strong resource base that offers substantial economic potential.
Realising that potential will be difficult. The international community must do everything possible to help with the reconstruction of Namibia, and Walvis bay must be one of the first priorities. The biggest obstacle to revamping Namibia's economy is the continuing occupation by South Africa of Walvis bay. The port is an integral part of the Namibian economy and could be a lifeline for the whole region. Without it, trade cannot flourish.
Namibia's fishing waters are its most valuable asset. According to the World bank, fishing alone could account for a doubling of GNP over the next five to six years. But South Africa's continuing occupation of Walvis bay, Namibia's only deep sea port, is a major impediment to the development of the fishing industry. Uncertainty over the port's future is slowing down investment in that crucial sector, and if the fish are not clearly products of an ACP country and processed on ACP territory, their special access to the EC is in jeopardy.
South Africa's claim to 12 offshore islands means that it claims 15 per cent. of Namibian waters and, therefore, 15 per cent. of the revenues from concessions granted to fishing companies operating in those waters. Other countries, including Zimbabwe, Botswana and Zambia, have expressed keen interest in using Walvis bay as a trade outlet. Plans to export coal from Zimbabwe are already under way. But the opportunity for the port to contribute to regional economic development can be fully realised only once the port is back in Namibia's hands.

Mr. John Carlisle: Does the hon. Lady believe that, if the scenario that she has painted were to come about, South Africa would have any part to play in the future of Walvis bay, perhaps not on the present lines but in some future trading arrangement?

Mrs. Clwyd: Yes, on the same basis as many other countries would contribute—on proper commercial terms. That is the position that one would expect South Africa to take if it ended its illegal occupation. The United Nations Security Council set May 1975 as the deadline for its withdrawal. The deadline passed and the UN did nothing. In 1978, the Security Council passed resolution 432 calling for the reintegration of Walvis bay into Namibia. Now, strong international pressure—which must include friends of South Africa such as the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle)—is needed to implement that resolution.
I understand that since 1979 the British Government have not once gone on record expressing their concern


about South Africa's continuing defiance of the UN. Is the Foreign Office so keen to encourage Pretoria—one could not blame the Foreign Office for wishing to continue to do that—that it will remain silent about Namibia's lifeline? I hope that that is not the case.
Ministers have in the past replied to our concerns about Walvis bay by saying that the Namibian and South African Governments should negotiate the issue bilaterally and are prepared to do so. If that is the case, may we be told what evidence there is that South Africa is prepared to negotiate and what progress is being made?
The Namibian Government are determined to aim for self-reliance and the Minister is well aware of that. They certainly have no intention of becoming dependent on an international begging bowl. The conference for private investors taking place there this week demonstrates the importance attached to private sector growth, joint ventures and foreign investment. Foreign Governments and official donors still have a major role to play, particularly in the first few transitional years.
The population has high hopes and it is crucial that we help the Government to meet some of their expectations as soon as possible. The British Government's immediate contribution of £10 million on independence is, of course, welcome but that cannot be it for the next three years. After all, independent Namibia—a country with which Britain has been closely linked for decades—is now setting out on a bold path of economic and political regeneration and has just joined the Commonwealth. Surely it deserves more than £10 million over three years. After all, we gave Poland £100 million for economic stabilisation, without hesitation.
In practical terms, the ODA's contribution amounts to sending out some experts and to giving advice. The main sector of need identified by the ODA before independence was English language training, yet nearly a year later one would search in vain to find more than two British educationists working on that scheme.
In the sphere of greatest human need—the impoverished subsistence farming on which 70 per cent. of Namibians depend—it seems that the ODA has done little except to send out one agronomist on an exploratory visit. It is not as though independence came just last month or was an unexpected surprise. It is embarrassing that the official handout from the Namibian Government lists Germany, Sweden, Finland, the United States and Norway as significant donors, but not Britain. Black farmers need support services and infrastructure, but, most of all, they need land. The Namibian Government are holding a conference on that crucial issue in June. Land reform has always been politically explosive, but it is essential if the poorest farmers are to be able to provide for themselves, rural communities are to develop and the grossly skewed economy is to develop in a more balanced way. I hope that the ODA will respond quickly to whatever is decided at the land conference. Namibians have proved themselves willing to put pragmatism before ideology, and I hope that the Government will not allow their ideology to inhibit support for vital land reform, if and when there are reforms in Namibia.
Expanded trade is even more important than aid. Namibia's trade is overwhelmingly dependent on South Africa and a few commodities selling at low and stagnant prices. Diversification into new markets and new goods must be supported. Namibia's accession to the Lome IV treaty is therefore welcomed. The next step should be an

EC-Namibia fisheries agreement to promote the development of an indigenous fishing sector. Is the United Kingdom doing anything to secure that? Why have our Government not yet signed Lome IV?
Namibia does not have the crushing debt burden suffered by some of its neighbours, but the justification for debt release is nevertheless overwhelming. Nambia's debt was illegally incurred by the South African regime. I see no reason why the people of Namibia should be expected to repay about £220 million borrowed by their oppressors to exploit them. What is the Government's view, and what action is being taken on what must be considered an illegitimate debt?
Political development in a newly independent Namibia is just as important as economic development. The SWAPO Government are to be congratulated on their commitment, as the Minister said, to multi-party democracy. I expect the international community to give every encouragement and support to its development. However, despite the Government's fine words about human rights and democracy, they do not seem to be seizing the opportunity to establish them firmly in Namibia. Why are they giving only £10 million over three years to Namibia when they can afford to give £40 million, £50 million and even £60 million to Malawi, Kenya and Nigeria each year?

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: I am trying to follow what the hon. Lady is saying, but she is painting a picture as though Namibia were our original responsibility. It was the responsibility, first, of Germany, then of the League of Nations and then it came under the South African mandate. It is basically a German-South African-United Nations problem. What we contribute surely amounts to a generous gesture on the part of our Government.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am surprised that the hon. Lady thinks that only one country should feel any responsibility towards Namibia. I am sure that all hon. Members feel that they have a big responsibility towards Namibia. It is not just a matter for one country.

Mr. John Carlisle: Why?

Mrs. Clwyd: If that is not clear to the hon. Gentleman he should ask the South African Government, with whom he is so closely associated.
Namibia has joined the Commonwealth and I think that the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) would agree that, in the commonwealth of nations, we all have responsibilities towards each other.
The past abuse of human rights, by both sides fighting the war, has been gruesomely documented by many sources. The new constitution includes important human rights guarantees.
As the main provider of training for the Namibian police and security forces, the British Government have a special obligation to ensure that the new commitment to human rights can be implemented. Amnesty International has called for a theoretical and practical course on human rights to be incorporated into the police and military training programmes run by the British, and I am sure that we wholeheartedly endorse that call. I understand that Namibians are in the United Kingdom now for Ministry of Defence training. Is human rights training included?
The changes in Namibia over the past year have been enormous, but the entire southern Africa region is


undergoing a gradual transformation. The human and economic costs of South African aggression and destabilisation have been astronomic. The United Nations Economic Commission for Africa estimates that southern Africa needs at least $2·5 billion a year, over four years, to repair the economic damage caused by South Africa alone.

Mr. John Carlisle: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Clwyd: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. We are well aware of his interests, and I hope he will contribute to the debate at the appropriate time.
Namibia has a key role in southern Africa. Investment in Namibia and in the region must go hand in hand. British aid to SADCC—the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference—is low compared with other donors. But I am particularly concerned to find that EC aid to SADCC has fallen significantly in real terms from Lome III to Lomé IV, just at a time when SADCC needs additional resources to incorporate Namibia into its programme of action.
New opportunities for democracy and development exist in Namibia and are emerging throughout southern Africa that simply have not been seen before. We must grasp those opportunities and invest in them. Namibia's potential for political and economic success, in a region that has been so riven with strife, and in a continent where so many economies are shrinking and so many dictators remain, is enormous. I urge the Government to realise the magnitude of the task of reconstruction, and to ensure that Britain's contribution matches that task.

Sir George Gardiner: The Bill is commendably brief and I trust that my speech will be likewise. I join in giving the Bill a warm welcome from the Government Back Benches.
I well remember in November 1989 leading a parliamentary observer mission made up of Members of Parliament from three European countries under the auspices of the International Freedom Foundation to observe the first free elections under United Nations auspices. We were happy to conclude from our observations that the elections were as free and fair as possible in the circumstances and I have followed Namibia's progress ever since.
The immediate gain from those elections, in which the South West Africa People's Organisation got less than two thirds of the votes cast, was that SWAPO came together with old enemies—

Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman, perhaps with certain humility, compare in percentage terms the popular support for SWAPO with that for his own party at the last election?

Sir George Gardiner: This is not the right occasion to be drawn into such a comparison. If I were to answer that question, no doubt I would be out of order anyway.
The point that I was trying to make, which Labour Members might listen to and they might even agree with, is that the one gain was that SWAPO came together with its old enemies to draft a constitution—a good constitution—and then to join them in Government. That

good start has been maintained and I echo the words of my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on that.
We have now a Namibia which is a multi-party democracy and that is a gain. It has an entrenched Bill of Rights, which is highly commendable. Despite SWAPO's Marxist past, it has taken a constructive attitude to existing and new businesses and attracting foreign investment.
Despite the points made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), the Namibian Government has, by contrast, shown some restraint over pressing its claim to Walvis bay and has maintained good relations with South Africa, on which it is to be congratulated.
There are some anxieties. Fusing the armed forces of the two former warring sides into one army, the fighters of the People's Liberation Army of Namibia on one side and Koevoet police members on the other, led to predictable problems, some of which have yet to be resolved. I hope that the provisions of the Bill with regard to visiting forces will help in an integration which must be fair to all parties.
The other anxiety that I encountered when visiting Namibia was on behalf of the bushmen whom I met at Omega. They were concerned about whether their position would be properly protected under the new constitution and I gather that that concern persists. Nevertheless, that does not detract from the fact that we have a new, independent and free Namibia which has got off to a good start and is certainly a worthy member of the commonwealth of nations.

Sir Russell Johnston: I rise briefly to express warm support for the Bill on behalf of the Liberal Democrats. As the Minister for Overseas Development said, as did the hon. Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) and for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), Namibia is moving in a positive and constructive way.
During the long period of the war and the agitation few doubted that independence would eventually be achieved, but many feared that the bitterness that would follow would leave suppurating wounds which would last a long time. It is remarkable that that problem seems to have been quickly overcome, and that commands our admiration and support.
I have visited Namibia only once and that was while it was still under the South African mandate. At that time I had a long meeting with Mr. Ahtisaari, the Finnish United Nations representative. This is an opportunity to pay tribute once more to the long involvement of United Nations officials in preparing the way for Namibia's independence and her entry into the Commonwealth.
I had four questions to ask, but three have already been answered by the Minister. One was a question on aid, another on debt—an important matter—and the third a question on Walvis bay. My fourth question results in part from my own curiosity. One of the fascinating things about Namibia is a unique little town called Swakopmund, the majority of whose occupants were Germans.
There was much worry during the war about the Germans' safety and even talk of taking them in jumbo jets back to Germany. I understand that many of those fears and anxieties have been resolved. The Minister mentioned a commitment of the new Namibian open society to the involvement of all its people from whatever background.


I would be interested to know how the German element, which was also referred to by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman), is fitting into the new independent country.
I end simply by repeating that I warmly welcome the Bill and the way in which the Minister presented it to us. I am sure that there will be no opposition to it from any Bench tonight.

Sir Anthony Durant: I welcome the Bill. It is a great step forward that Namibia has become a member of the Commonwealth. It is important to emphasise that it applied to become a member. That is significant for the growth of the Commonwealth.
I have had the privilege of being chairman of the executive committee of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association for the past three years and we strongly welcome Namibia's membership of the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The British branch of that association is planning to send a seminar on parliamentary democracy to Namibia, and that is a good step forward. Parliamentarians and Officers of the House will present that seminar. Namibia has invited them to do so and has welcomed the prospect of such a seminar.
I am particularly delighted to speak for a few moments on behalf of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and to say how much we welcome what has happened in Namibia. Many hon. Members have already said how remarkable it is that a country that went through such a traumatic time has since worked so closely together, healing wounds which many of us thought would take generations to heal.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) was a little niggly in her approach to the debate. One cannot compare loans to Poland with grants to Namibia. They are different things. She was not quite as magnanimous as she might have been.
On that note, I welcome the Bill. I hope that Namibia goes from strength to strength. Perhaps one day it will invite me to go there.

Mr. Peter L. Pike: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this relatively short and uncontroversial debate on a Bill which will receive its Second Reading without dissent.
I have always taken an extremely close and positive interest in southern African affairs. I went to Namibia in 1989 during the process which led to independence, at which time I was accompanied by John McDonald, a human rights lawyer, and guided by Alison Harvey of the Namibian Christian Exchange, which sponsored the visit.
When the election process started in April, there were certain difficulties—as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), who was there, can testify. At the time of my visit in May, although there was an air of enthusiasm and a determination to achieve independence, some anxiety remained about the role of Casspirs and Koevoet. In any event, we offered criticism where it was necessary, and gave encouragement where it was due—as well as voicing strong words, when we thought that would be useful.
We have all been greatly encouraged by subsequent events. The Minister referred to Namibia's determination to make democracy work. Everyone whom we met during the pre-election period was obviously committed to that objective. The Minister spoke also of national reconciliation, and we found a great deal of commitment to that as well. The campaign for the three Rs included reconciliation, which was viewed as essential once independence was achieved. Even in the difficult days when many problems remained to be overcome, there was enthusiasm and a determination to achieve independence, and to make it work.
We all welcome Namibia's admission as the 50th member of the commonwealth of nations, for many reasons. South Africa is still undergoing the difficult process of ending apartheid. We applaud the measures that President de Klerk announced last Friday, but we recognise that there may be many obstacles in the way. Nevertheless, the example of Namibia's success on their doorstep must encourage people in South Africa in the belief that change can work. I look forward to the clay —which I hope will be in the not-too-distant future—when the House debates the admission of South Africa as the 51st member of the Commonwealth. Unanimous approval of that by the House would mean that South Africa had done everything that we wanted in ending apartheid, and in making the advances that we all want in that country. The sooner that day comes, the better. I am sure that it will be widely welcomed, even if some right hon. and hon. Members would not be too happy about such a development.
In the case of Namibia's elections, the role specified for the United Nations was of supervising and controlling the elections. That was very different from the monitoring role that the UN has traditionally played and should serve as a lesson to other countries where we want a return to democracy. Token monitoring is not sufficient and we hope that the United Nations will supervise and control future elections, to ensure true democracy in many more countries.
The Minister referred to the fishing industry, whose importance to Namibia is widely recognised. In fact, I raised that matter with the Minister at Question Time yesterday. The fishing industry is important not only in terms of employment but to the nation's economy. We acknowledge the difficult negotiations concerning Walvis bay, but I hope that they will reach a satisfactory conclusion soon. Namibia's fishing industry is important also to Zimbabwe, Zambia, Botswana and other countries, which would welcome the opportunity to use Walvis bay for their import and export trade. That would also bring economic advantages to Namibia, at a time when it has financial difficulties.
The Minister referred to Namibia's courageous decision to adopt the English language, although Afrikaans is dominant in many parts of the country, as German is in others. Namibia recognises that if it is to take its place in the modern world, it has to adopt the English language in developing as an international nation, and as a member of the Commonwealth and of the United Nations.
Namibia has gone a long way in a short time. I was in South Africa when the announcement was made that it intended to implement United Nations resolution 435 and


start the process of granting independence to Namibia which came as a bombshell after so many years of prevarication and of dodging the issue.
We warmly welcome Namibia's entry into the Commonwealth, which will be backdated in the way that the Bill proposes. We wish that country well in the future. I hope that Namibia will serve as an encouragement to its close neighbour, South Africa, in completing the process of ending apartheid, so that those two nations, side by side, can play a major role in the future of the world. I certainly hope that, one day, we shall welcome a South Africa that has taken all the right decisions as the 51st member of the Commonwealth.

Mr. Cohn Shepherd: I join my hon. Friends in congratulating my right hon. Friend the Minister on the sensitivity and the timing of the Bill, and on enabling it to come into effect on the anniversary of Namibia's independence. I also congratulate Namibia on its subsequent decision to join the Commonwealth. It could not have taken a better one.
The Commonwealth is sometimes described by the world's press, and by our own, as being something less than exciting—but those of us who work in the Commonwealth know full well that it is an expanding, energetic and sympathetic forum. It achieves far more, not through controversy, but by working together—which does not lend itself to journalistic exploitation.
As you, Mr. Speaker, are a former governor of the Commonwealth Institute, I am sure that you would want to associate yourself with my next remark. As one of the institute's present governors, I welcome the opportunity that the legislation offers Namibia to participate in the institute's activities and affairs. It is a fine medium for enabling the nature and the shape of a country in the Commonwealth to be understood in Britain, and in other member countries, too. I look forward, on behalf of all the institute's governors, to Namibia's full participation in its activities.
I reinforce the welcome given by my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant), who referred to Namibia's relationship with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Those of us fortunate enough to attend the plenary conference this year in Harare will remember for a long time the contribution made by the representatives of Namibia, who attended as observers on that occasion. The speech by the Deputy Speaker was remarkable in its emotion, perception, generosity and understanding. It certainly had to be one of the high points, together with the contribution made by other members of that delegation. They are now full members of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and we shall look forward to their full participation in all activities and panels during the plenary conference in Delhi this coming year. It must be an exciting prospect for them, as it is for us.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West mentioned the proposal to develop a parliamentary seminar for Namibia, but I look forward to being able to welcome members of the Namibian House in Westminster at our parliamentary seminars and visits in the near future. I am certain that we both have a lot to give and to receive,

and I look forward to a growing relationship and participation in the form of Westminster parliamentary democracy, which is what the Commonwealth is about.

Mr. Paul Boateng: This is a happy day for Namibia, for the Commonwealth and for the House. Namibia has no greater friends in the House than my hon. Friends the Members for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and for Burnley (Mr. Pike). Indeed, they are to a free, non-racial South Africa, and tonight Namibia, what the hon. Members for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) and for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) are to apartheid South Africa—firm friends and advocates. Those hon. Members may well laugh, but they are known in the House as the Castor and Pollux of apologists for apartheid in South Africa. I did say "Pollux"—I do not want to offend the hon. Member for Reigate any more than I intend to. It is refreshing to hear a speech from the hon. Member for Reigate with which one was not totally out of sympathy. The interventions of the hon. Member for Luton, North were entirely in character—unpleasant in the extreme.
I do not want to mar this happy debate by making remarks of a partisan or party political nature because the Minister for Overseas Development, who is sitting on the Government Front Bench, is also a good and firm friend of Namibia, and I well remember a night some time ago—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—during an Adjournment debate on this subject, when she gave a warm, sensitive speech, which showed that she was especially concerned about the problems that Namibia was facing at that time. Happily, those problems have been overcome. We now look to the right hon. Lady to show what a good and firm friend of Namibia she is by prevailing upon the Treasury and other members of the Cabinet to ensure that she and the Government follow the advice given her by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley about wholehearted support and an aid programme from this country and the European Community, which is vital if this new-found member of the Commonwealth is to get off to the start it deserves.
The decision of the people of Namibia about the use of the English language is important. That language has the capacity to heal some of the wounds that have opened up in that country over the years. It has an important role to play in Namibia's development and in overcoming the appalling education system that existed prior to Namibia's independence.
The British Council must be given all the assistance and support that it needs by the Government so that it can fulfil its important role in Namibia. The British Council has done much to be proud of in Africa. It has contributed much to its development, and to the education of its people. Now it is much needed in Namibia—as it is in South Africa—and it is to be hoped that the right hon. Lady will tell us that she accepts the special role that the British Council has to play in Namibia and will do all she can to further its cause.
So this is a happy night, a night which we shall remember when we look forward to a new member joining the Commonwealth—a multi-party, non-racial state, which is an example to the Commonwealth in general and to South Africa, its neighbour, in particular.

Mr. John Bowis: I agree with the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) about the English language. I am only thankful that he does not propose to export the Welsh language there, or at least not before he has had some advice on pronuciation from his hon. Friends on the Front Bench.
If Castor and Pollux are on the Conservative side of the House, I suspect that Sagittarius has been trying to fire a few barbs into this debate from the Opposition Benches. There is, however, a real divide in this debate, which is exemplified by some of the hon. Members who have spoken—the divide between those hon. Members who have been to Namibia and those who wish to go.
I must declare that I have been to Namibia, in the run-up to the free and fair elections which we are celebrating. I was not in the same group as my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), as I went a little before that. So, I celebrate this occasion with a memory full of pictures of that beautiful country, from the Zambezi to Windhoek and the bush in Ovamboland and elsewhere. The country has tremendous charm and potential for tourism, among other things, once it has settled down.
We can also celebrate the way in which Namibia reached independence. It is an enormous credit to the Namibian people and to the many people who went to help them that 40,000 people were brought back into the country—although not the 80,000 expected, according to the United Nations statistics—were resettled in the country and registered for an election. Anyone who has travelled around the bush areas of the Ovamboland and Kavanga will realise that it is incredible that registration for a free and fair democratic election could conceivably have operated there, but it did. I believe that slightly more people registered than had been estimated as the population of the country at the time, but that demonstrates the success of bringing people back into the country, and also the success in the running of the election.
Tribute must be paid to the people of Namibia and also to two individuals, one of whom has already been referred to by the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston)—Maarti Ahtisaari, whose role is greatly to be admired. He must also be admired for fending off some of the pressures behind him from the United Nations, and showing his independence as the special representative. Tribute must also be paid to Mr. Jan Pienaar, the South African administrator general, who fended off some of the pressure from behind him from South Africa. Between them they brought this process to a happy conclusion.
Now Namibia is a new independent country with enormous opportunities which have been listed. The opportunities for the fishing industry have been mentioned. I agree with the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), but the British Government acknowledge that Walvis Bay is part of Namibia. We have accepted that. It is in the constitution and has been accepted by South Africa. The question is how we bring those two independent nations together to try to resolve any outstanding differences. That question is based On the fact—a constitutional fact—that the territory concerned is deemed by the international community, and certainly by this country, to be part of independent Namibia.
Fish, minerals and other natural resources are assets and there is considerable optimism. The white population

—civil servants, for instance—stayed when the new Government came in; so did business men and there are enormous opportunities for industrial investment.
The election has overcome the challenges that resulted from the domination of the Ovambo people, which amounts to 40 per cent. of the population—comparable to the domination of the Serbs in Yugoslavia. It was, perhaps, helpful that SWAPO did not achieve the two-thirds majority that could have given it control of the constitution; the resulting brake has been used sensibly, achieving a compromise that has led not only to the initial stages of constitutional rearrangement but to subsequent compromises, such as the acceptance of the executive president and—I say this in hushed tones—the introduction of proportional representation. Perhaps most important was the agreement that there should be no detention without trial. All that gives us confidence in the future of the country.
There is, however, a debit side. I hope that, through the good offices of my right hon. Friend the Minister and, indeed, all hon. Members, the European Community will not forget southern Africa while it gives support to eastern Europe, and will ensure that countries such as Namibia receive their fair share of development aid. Debt is a great problem, as is drought.
We return again and again, however, to the question of education. As the hon. Member for Brent, South pointed out, one of the greatest gifts that this country can give Namibia is the English language. It was tragic, in a sense, to see the newly returned politicians of Namibia trying to make themselves understood—politically and in every other way—in Afrikaans, which was the only language common to their audience. I hope that English will be the symbol of the country's new independence.
The Bill is simple, but it symbolises an enormous achievement on the part of this country. In welcoming it, we are highlighting both the possibilities revealed for the United Nations and perhaps, in a future debate, we shall consider how that could relate to other countries, such as Cambodia—and the example that Namibia is setting its neighbour, South Africa, and many other countries in independent Africa.

Mr. Robert Hughes: As others have said, this is a happy occasion: almost a year has passed since Namibian independence. It was certainly one of the happiest days of my life when I was invited, as chairman of the Anti-Apartheid Movement, to join in the celebrations of the constituency assembly that was making the arrangements for independence day.
Although this is not the time to indulge in bad memories of the past, we must remember the many years of sacrifice on the part of the Namibian people in their fight for independence. That started much earlier than the elections. We must record the fact that the United Nations was somewhat dilatory; but, because this is a happy occasion, we must set all that aside for the moment.
Much has changed. One of the most heartening aspects, which will greatly benefit the future of South Africa, is the spirit of reconciliation that has been abroad. Namibian people of all races have said that what happened in the past is past. When a country achieves independence, astonishing things happen: perhaps one of the most astonishing was my being chided in the House by the


Foreign Secretary, and reminded that I should be as moderate as Sam Njomo. That was really something, in view of what had been said about him over the years! It certainly startled me.

Mrs. Chalker: Did the hon. Gentleman accept that advice?

Mr. Hughes: Not quite. I expect to be told at any moment that I should be as moderate as Nelson Mandela and Oliver Tambo; that would complete the trio. Anyway, a great deal has happened, and I feel that we should recognise how much was done, remembering those who died, those who lived and the great prospects for Namibia.
We must also reflect that the future depends considerably on us and our good will. It is interesting to note the different perceptions of Africa, and the way in which our own perceptions of that country become lost in time. From about 4 pm on independence day, the rain was teeming down in torrents; most of us Europeans apologised to the Namibians for the fact that it should rain on independence day, but they replied, "It is great: it is a good omen. You have brought us good luck—we are desperate for rain." That, I think, illustrates the difference between us. No matter how well we think that we understand Africa, unless we have lived there for a long period—as I did—we may forget that rain is welcomed.
Namibia—all of it—is a rich country, with great potential. The question is whether that potential can be realised. I had an odd experience. A number of South African and Namibian exiles—I suppose that I could be described as a part-exile—travelled to Namibia. The only way in which we could travel was with South African Airways. We all shuffled reluctantly on to the Frankfurt-Namibia plane, and felt extremely guilty as we sat in a nice hotel gorging ourselves on the South African food and wine that we had spent so many years boycotting and urging others to boycott. It was an odd mixture of pleasure and remorse.
There is a point to this anecdote. Windhoek is a marvellous old German city, beautifully laid out, with wide avenues and streets and lovely houses. One could almost imagine oneself in Utopia. To set ourselves to rights, and to help ourselves to remember the difficulties that the future would entail, we travelled about a mile and a half to the African township of Katatura. Visitors to Katatura see the desperate poverty in which Africans live. I know that this applies to hundreds, if not thousands, of places in southern Africa—and, indeed, South Africa itself—but if an alien from outer space were to ask, "What is this apartheid?", it would know the real and desperate meaning of the word if someone took it from Windhoek to Katatura.
I have spent 35 years campaigning on South Africa—not only for theoretical reasons, although the theory of democracy is important. The campaign has as much to do with people's lives as it has to do with theoretical democracy. We have a tremendous duty to ensure that the spirit of reconciliation that has been abroad before and since independence day, as well as on that day, is not dissipated because we have not done enough to try to resolve the problems.
The two main outstanding issues have already been mentioned, but they need to be reaffirmed. Those issues are

Walvis bay—which, for geographical and historical reasons, and because of the United Nations resolutions, is an integral part of Namibia and should be recognised as such by the South African Government—and the enormous debt that has built up in Namibia. President de Klerk, in his valedictory speech—surprisingly well received at the hand-over ceremony on independence day, although a gasp went around the stadium when he spoke of "us Africans"; that set him back a bit—pointed out that South Africa had left Namibia a marvellous infrastructure.
There are many good roads in the country, but they were not built for the good of the Namibians. They were built for the same reasons for which the Romans built the roads here and in Scotland—for the easy mobility of the army. It seems inconceivable that Namibia should be asked to bear the cost of the war machine that kept it down for so long. So I think that the South Africans must do something about the debt.
I had a talk some two months ago with a member of the United States Department of State. We were discussing what President de Klerk might say at the opening of the South African Parliament. He was quite enthusiastic. He believed that President de Klerk would say in his opening speech to Parliament that he was ceding—if that is the right word—Walvis bay and that, if he would not write off the whole debt, he would write off part of it. Many other things were missing from that speech. I do not want to go into that, except to say that nothing was mentioned, so far as I am aware, about these two subjects. It is not good enough, in my view, for hon. Members to say that the European Community should help to pay the debt. I think that the South Africans should pay the debt and we must continue to press them along those lines.
Namibia, during the elections and since it achieved independence, has put the scars behind it. Some are unwilling to put the scars behind them. I raised with SWAPO the issue of detainees, or however one describes them, during the period before independence. They admitted that there were things done on the SWAPO side which they would rather had not been done. There were things that the South Africans did which some South Africans, I believe, would rather had not been done. Some people are unwilling to put the past behind them, but I believe that there is a good chance of all that being set behind them.
The Namibians offer an opportunity to those whites in South Africa who are afraid for the future and afraid that the pace of development in South Africa is too fast. My own view—and I hope that at a later stage we shall have a chance to debate this thoroughly—is that the pace of events in South Africa is still too slow. The people in the townships and elsewhere are getting fractious and hesitant about the pace of developemnt. Therefore, we must make sure that development continues in South Africa. We must tell President de Klerk quite clearly that he should not be mesmerised by events in the Gulf and think that those who are desperately concerned about the Gulf will forget South Africa, the major wrongs that still have to be righted and the way in which democracy must come to South Africa.
I wish this Bill, as I think we all do, a very fair wind. We wish the Namibian people every possible success, every one of them, irrespective of race, creed or colour. We believe that their example in the last 12 months should put South Africa to shame and make South Africans realise that there is a future of great benefit post apartheid for all


the people of South Africa. I hope that it will not be too long before we have a Bill before us that welcomes South Africa back into the Commonwealth where it arid its people really belong.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: To judge from the number of people who have either overtly or covertly suggested that they might like a trip to Namibia, I imagine that the Government will be getting on as quickly as possible with drawing up their tourist brochure. But I do not think that they will be asking the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) to write it for them, because the picture that she painted of Namibia is not one that I recognise. I may be one of the few people in the Chamber tonight who has paid her fare to go to Namibia. I have visited the Etosha game park, which is one of the wonders of the world, and many other natural history areas of the country. I have also been on a general political tour of the country. To me it is potentially one of the best capitalist development countries in the whole of Africa, and I have visited practically every country in Africa.
For the past 20 years I have run a business dealing with teaching equipment, through which I have had the opportunity and good fortune to talk to the departments of education in almost every country, including Namibia. I know from personal experience that Namibia, manifested by the spirit of the people who live there, has a terrific future as a capitalist country. It has one of the best, finest and most successful uranium mining features, the Rossing mines; there are diamond mining areas; and there are excellent resorts along the coast. It also has, potentially, one of the best fishing industries in the world. The only problem at the moment is that the Namibians do not have a fleet with which to police it and there is a great deal of poaching. But once they get the resources to control that, it will bring them enormous wealth. So that country, perhaps more than any other African country, has the prospect of a bright free-enterprise future.
I am as delighted as are all hon. Members with the Bill and with the multinational nature of the Namibian Parliament. I hope that it remains a multi-party country and does not, like Zambia and some other countries of Africa, go down the road to single-party government, thus frightening away all the capitalist enterprises which are the backbone of its support.
All developing countries have problems of poverty. People in country districts move towards towns such as Windhoek where they set up suburbs which are much less pleasing than people would like them to be. The only way in which we can improve life for those people is by helping in the development of capitalist industries that will increase the wealth of the country and make those people prosperous.
I would like to leave those who bother to read Hansard tomorrow with my view that Namibia is a terrific country, with delightful people, wonderful natural history and terrific industrial and commercial potential. I know that many African countries have failed to achieve this, but if it keeps its political act open, with an all-party state, I think Namibia has a wonderful future.

Mr. John Carlisle: It would be somewhat churlish of me not to join in the general welcome for this Bill and the implications of a new, independent and free Namibia. However, I believe that it needs to be said that, in the spirit of reconciliation shown on both sides of the House, certain things said earlier, particularly by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), were, to say the least, unfortunate and somewhat misinformed and misguided.
I say to the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng), whose views on South Africa are almost as well known as mine, that had it not been for the cajoling, persuading and constant co-operation with the present South African Government that I and my hon. Friends—in particular, the hon. Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner)—have pursued over the years, we might not have been in this position this evening. Carping though he is about this relationship and the discussions over many years of the many and varied problems of South Africa, I suggest to him that it is the influence of British friends, and British friends in the House among others, that has helped South Africa along the road to realisation that the United Nations resolution has to be implemented. Because of people like us, they took that decision. By his constant carping and criticism the hon. Gentleman has, I think, delayed the process—I see the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) shaking his head—in very much the same way as one of his former colleagues, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), did when he was Foreign Secretary, and Mr. Andrew Young, the American ambassador to the United Nations, did in the 1970s. It looked as though a settlement could be reached, but that was scuppered, of course, by Mr. Young and the then Foreign Secretary.
It must be noted that whatever the future of Namibia is to be—obviously, we all wish it well—it is somewhat foolish and naive, particularly as outlined by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, totally to ignore the obviously old dependence that it had on South Africa and the new dependence that it is bound to have on it as a major trading capital nation of that continent. If misfortune ever struck this country and there was a Labour Government, I hope that the hon. Lady, in her attitude towards that country and to the whole of southern Africa, would perhaps be a little more magnanimous in accepting the reality that South Africa is there and is a major trading partner. The hon. Lady mentioned several other trading nations in and around southern Africa. Many of them are totally dependent on South Africa. Whether that is right or wrong is not the argument. That is a fact and a reality which it is foolish to ignore. Namibia will certainly be economically dependent in many ways on South Africa and the South African market.
It is a pity that on a day when our Prime Minister recognised, after President de Klerk's remarkable speech last Friday, that sanctions should be lifted fast, there is still talk in this place, particularly among Opposition Members —although some of them are beginning to change their ways—that we should continue to impose trading sanctions. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, for whose views on southern African affairs I have the greatest respect, was right to say that South Africa should take


some responsibility for Namibia's debt. A buoyant South African economy would be able to help to pay that debt if sanctions were withdrawn.
South Africa's attitude to the Walvis bay issue is not cast in concrete. It is, as it was in the past, an enormous asset to South Africa. It will also be an enormous asset to the region. My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) referred to the expertise that will be needed to improve Namibia's fishing industry. Expertise will also be required if Namibia is to improve its technology. South African co-operation will almost certainly be needed. The future of Walvis bay must be settled by means of partnership and co-operation between the two countries rather than by the complete handing over of that facility.
So far, so good. Multi-party democracy is working. We applaud that. The majority of Namibians have put behind them the old bitterness which, regrettably, was evident in the speech of the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. All that has gone. There is a new spirit in the country. I have not accepted a free trip to Namibia, although I have accepted several to South Africa. I have been invited several times to Namibia, particularly for sporting events. It is a country that I should certainly like to visit one day. I do not speak with any particular bias. If the tone set by certain Opposition Members—with some honourable exceptions —were to continue, as my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay warned, the likelihood is that democracy in Namibia will not remain as it is but will, sadly, go the way of democracy in so many other countries in southern Africa.
Of course, we welcome the Bill. I wish Namibia a fair wind in the exciting times that lie ahead. As the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, I hope that one day we shall debate a similar motion on South Africa.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: History will now be able to record the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton (Mr. Carlisle), together with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), Trevor Huddleston and many others as having invited South Africa to do what eventually it got around to doing. How good it would have been if South Africa had listened to my hon. Friend at the time that the United Nations said that South Africa should obey the terms of the mandate and leave Namibia.
The advantage of one person, one vote and a flexible economic process can deliver great benefits. First, it delivers people from war. In far too many countries people are still denied the vote, or their vote is not carried into effect.
I should like Burma to beat South Africa back into the Commonwealth. Burma gained its independence but did not join the Commonwealth. Burma had an election but the results have not been implemented.
We ought to learn the lessons of Zimbabwe and Namibia. I am sure that they will be learnt in South Africa —I hope as soon as possible. They are that to give a person the vote should lead to that vote being used, to competing candidates and, preferably, to competing parties. The Commonwealth countries have more competing candidates than most other countries in the world, though not always with competing parties. Then there would be less starvation, fewer deaths and more people who were willing

to accept that resignation or retirement is honourable, having led their country, rather than waiting until, having formed a dynasty, they are forced out at the point of a gun.

Mr. George Foulkes: Tell that to the right hon. Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher).

Mr. Bottomley: I was just about to come to my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher). At the beginning of her term as Prime Minister we saw the advent of freedom for Zimbabwe. That was a great triumph for her and for Lord Carrington, which I do not think anyone else could have pulled off. A great deal of help was forthcoming from within the Commonwealth also.
At the Lusaka Heads of Government meeting the Prime Minister of Australia, the Prime Minister of Jamaica and, I suspect, the Queen—of course, I am not supposed to bring the monarch into a political discussion—combined to help bring about the Lancaster house conference. That conference and the persistence of my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley produced a result far better than anyone had expected. Towards the end of my right hon. Friend's term as Prime Minister, Namibia became independent. When the 30-year rule has been satisfied, we may find out that some communication between my right hon. Friend and the South Africans had as much influence as did the communications from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle).
If I were to offer a suggestion for the "Thatcher foundation", it would be that it should be dedicated to trying to spread democracy round the world. The reputation of the Commonwealth and of other bodies for encouraging people to get away from subjugation to minority groups could be a great advantage, as we have seen in places like Iraq, where the richness of the ruler contrasts with the poverty of the ruled.
I suspect that one could use that advantage in terms of flexible economic systems and flexible fiscal systems. My right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley may go down in history as one of the people who helped to carry through a change such as we have seen in fits and starts since the war.
Let me explain why I am speaking for the second time in two days. When I was first elected to this House—in 1975—the leader of the Conservative party asked me what subjects I was interested in. I replied that two of the things I was interested in were family policy and southern Africa. It struck me that the Conservatives ought to be making sure that people like Ian Smith and others in southern Africa did not think that the Tories supported white-minority rule. It would be well that people should realise that that sort of approach was morally wrong and eventually a military loser.
Many Tory Members should pay tribute to people like the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North who has consistently pointed out how wrong apartheid is. I do not go along with all that the anti-apartheid people have stood for. However, that is a detail. I am thinking of the symbolism of opposition to apartheid. I am thinking of the ability to have been to Friends house on the Euston road and heard very significant speeches by ANC and SWAPO leaders and by people from various Zimbabwe opposition parties, often in exile.
The audiences at such meetings were British, but not those who throw sticks at anti-poll-tax demonstrations in Trafalgar square. I am referring to people who have shown a consistent interest in human rights and who believe that what we think is good for us is good for people in other countries also. Namibia's joining the Commonwealth is an illustration of the fact that that approach is right.
In the past I have been a patron of the defence aid fund for most of my years in this House. Although I did not do as much as I ought to have done, I can say that help for people who have been imprisoned, people who have no one else to speak for them, is important. We should riot be dealing just with the big questions like Walvis bay; we ought to be asking, "What can we do to provide the help that is needed by ordinary individuals suffering oppression?"
I hope that this country will continue to provide aid. This may be a matter for another debate, but I have to say that we must continue to try to increase this country's contribution towards 0·7 per cent. Perhaps we could do that and, at the same time, create greater trust in South Africa by helping to relieve Namibia of its debts.
I hope that that will result in a rise in the public expenditure line for the Foreign Office, including the ODA. I hope that by the time those debts are written off we shall have moved towards the 0·7 per cent. Sadly, in recent years the trend has been in the opposite direction.
There are several ways in which we could deal with the voluntary agencies. I hope on another occasion to be able to deal with the work of VSO. My hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. Goodlad), who is a returned volunteer, is not present, so I shall leave that subject for the time being. We can favour providing assistance for, and giving prominence to, such projects as the Ranfurley library scheme, which was doing work in Namibia when I was there in the early 1980s. We might also recognise that the movement towards English in Namibia began not on independence but when the people of Namibia revolted against the Afrikaans language in the early 1980s. Whatever one may want to say about the South African defence forces, they tried to help with the teaching of English.
As we move into what I suspect might be called a recession, we might find ways of getting people with technical and English skills into Namibia on a short-term basis, because their knowledge and skills will be of much value in the next few months and years.
I want to follow the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North by not going back into the atrocities and tragedies which were Namibia's lot and which spread into Angola. I should like to mention the role of the Namibian Council of Churches and Namibian National Front during the years of agony in Namibia. The people stuck in the middle, who were signed up not with SWAPO—that was not such a bad body as many led us to believe—but with the Namibian Council of Churches and the Namibian National Front, were squeezed from both sides. I pay tribute to the dignity and honourable way in which many of them behaved for such a long time.
The Lutheran churches, and most of the other churches, came out of the years towards independence with honour. Others were in contact with them, and I should not want the debate to pass without again paying tribute to the Catholic Institute for International Relations. Its briefings are a model of the information that such organisations can offer. How nice it was that the

European Community sent as its representative to Windhoek someone who had worked in the Catholic Institute for International Relations. I am pleased that the European Commission has decided to move that person on to South Africa.
Independence for Namibia shows the way forward for South Africa. The strong will learn from the weak, which will be important for southern Africa and, I hope, will spread through the middle of Africa and central Africa as other countries learn that food must be produced, that one must get the best from people and that that cannot be achieved with out-of-date ideologies. Being practical is one of the lessons that SWAPO can offer.
In the early 1980s, at about the time of independence for Zimbabwe, we had in Lusaka one of the strongest high commissions, in terms of dedication and competence of its staff, which was led by Sir John Johnson. When I visited the country, he made it possible for me to go to parties with the Pan-African Congress, the ANC and at the United Nations institute for Namibia, which provided some link and showed that Members of Parliament are interested in the rights and wrongs; the facts rather than the fantasies.
More hon. Members should visit countries that are holding elections, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner), who attended the Namibian elections, my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and others. If we can get into the habit of sharing each other's election processes, we shall become more knowledgeable and more of us will be able to appeal through a network of politicians around the world so that few people's agonies go unrecognised by others.
We rely on contacts and on facts. That is where the work of the CIIR and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office matters. It is often necessary to have dirty hands. It is not always easy for a Minister, especially a Conservative Minister, to tell the House what the truth is. One or two Ministers for Sport have become ex-Ministers for Sport because of the South African sports issue. Not all of us can feel pride about our lack of support for Ministers at times when it might have been more useful.
The dramatic change in South Africa must be recognised. It is not happening fully yet. We have not heard explicitly about one person, one vote, or when that will come, but if we do not provide more of a reward I suspect that a provincial caucus in the Transvaal National party may seriously delay free and full elections in South Africa. That is why I argue for the dropping of unimportant sanctions. Sporting sanctions should be reconsidered. I hope that the governing bodies internationally will do that.
We can go on to see prosperity in Namibia. It will not be perfect but it will be much better than anything else that could have happened. I hope that what is happening there will spread into South Africa itself.
The point in the Bill that matters most to the House is the admission of Namibia to the Commonwealth. People are willing to work together and to learn together. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), governor of the Commonwealth Institute said, they are learning from each other. We have a great deal to offer and we have a great deal to learn as well.
I make a penultimate plea. There is a country beyond Burma which has not yet joined the Commonwealth. I


look on the United States as becoming the 53rd country because it has not bothered to join the rest who have been affected by our influence.
My more local plea is that all schools in Eltham, my constituency, and every constituency should use the Commonwealth Institute. It is an unusual place which can provide much meaning to the history of the last 50 years or, indeed, the last 250 years. It will give children an idea that they are citizens of the world, something which we tend to forget in our education system.

Mr. Donald Anderson: The number and the range of contributions to the debate, including the remarkable speech by the hon. Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley), indicate clearly to me that our decision to press for the debate to be held on the Floor of the House rather than in Committee was justified. I have learnt a great deal. For example, I have learnt from the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) that the real division is between those who have been to Namibia and those who want to go, and from the hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) of a division even within those who have gone, between those whose trips were paid for by various institutions and those who have gone with business expenses. Certainly she gave a very good Tory plug for the new Namibia.
I hope that the Overseas Development Administration will consider tourism as a major area for foreign exchange for the new country, with the Etosha pan, with the savage scenery, with the marvellous restaurants in Windhoek itself, with the Skeleton coast and with the marvellous range of landscapes—

Mrs. Gorman: And the wild animals.

Mr. Anderson: —and, indeed, the wild animals, which are all part of Namibia.
This has been an excellent debate, technical in form because it is a relatively small, technical Bill, but it has been an opportunity for hon. Members of all parties to give a collective blessing to the new Namibia and an opportunity too to review the role which we in Britain, and Britain as part of the Commonwealth, can play in responding to the needs of the new Namibia.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said so well, reconciliation is part of the recent history of Namibia. Those of us who have been brought up in the European tradition stand amazed at the readiness of people in southern Africa to take part in reconciliation. Experience in Zimbabwe shows that people who were imprisoned for long years during the independence struggle were willing to work together; one sees equal willingness in Namibia. I recall, as did the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Shepherd), the Namibian delegation at the CPA conference last October, led by the Deputy Speaker, Dr. Kameeta. The fact that it was a mixed party delegation boded well for knitting together and national reconciliation within Namibia.
There has been a proper welcome to Namibia as the 50th member of the Commonwealth, and, happily, the tenth member of the Southern Africa Development Co-ordination Conference. The hon. Members for Reading, West (Sir A. Durant) and for Hereford referred

to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. The association has much to offer, such as seminars and visits—not, I hope, merely from a British perspective. The neighbouring African countries, especially Botswana, which is a model of democracy, can play a significant role as models and friends to the newly emerging, newly independent Namibia.
Today, I discussed with the Commonwealth secretariat its own enhanced programme of technical assistance for Namibia. We are pleased that the British Government and the Overseas Development Administration have pledged their full proportion of support to that enhanced programme of technical co-operation under the auspices of the Commonwealth secretariat.
My first visit to Namibia in 1985 was sponsored by the Council of Churches of Namibia. The churches there saw their role as similar to that of the churches in Poland at the time—as a beacon of light and as a progressive opposition to a totalitarian, authoritarian oppressor. They were able to keep alight the hopes of the people of Namibia at a very difficult time.
With the passing of Security Council resolution 435 in 1978, hopes were raised, yet our overriding impression in 1985 was of a sense of gloom and despair, and of frustration at the lack of progress since the 1978 resolution, at the collusion between the United States and South Africa in terms of linkage and at the fear of the churches and others that the independence promised in 1978 was receding into an ever-distant future.
Today, I learned of the sterling role played by the hon. Member for Luton, North (Mr. Carlisle) in that independence process. I confess that I was unaware of the persuation that he brought to bear on the powers that be in South Africa. When we come to rewrite the history books on the motive behind the independence of Namibia, we shall not think of the battle of Cuito Canavale, of the effect of sanctions or of the internal economic pressures on South Africa. They can be assigned to a footnote in the history books. We shall think of the pressures applied by the progressive hon. Member for Luton, North when we recall our history.
I revisited Namibia in August 1989 and saw the return of the exiles. That visit was made under the auspices of the West European Parliamentarians for Action against Apartheid which has had a particularly close interest in Namibia. I had the honour to be its senior vice-president. We organised a conference in November of last year on aid and co-operation with the new Namibia, and we look forward to being in Windhoek in April.
In November 1989, I also had the privilege to be part of a three-person Inter-Parliamentary Union team monitoring the election. We were delighted to see the eagerness of the people of Namibia for democracy, as were other hon. Members who have been there. I recall being woken at dawn with a Pakistani senator, Javed Jabbar, and seeing a trail of people already queueing, eager to vote in that election, which we did not hesitate to confirm as free and fair. It has indeed been a success story.
From the time of the 1978 resolution, and indeed before, Namibia has been the child of the international community. Our task now is to ensure that the international community—including Britain, the Commonwealth and the European Community—respond properly so that democracy can flourish.
There were high expectations at the time of independence, but for many Namibians, such as


subsistence farmers, democracy and expectations will mean a new waterhole and the provision of drinking water and aid—not so much the grand gestures, but the micro-projects that bring proper relief to villages in those areas. I hope that the ODA will look properly at those matters and will try to harness the enormous skills in this country, in particular the skills of some professional people who have taken early retirement, such as doctors, engineers and others, and look again at educational institutions in the United Kingdom that can twin with appropriate schools in Namibia, as education has properly been stressed as the great underpinning of the needs of the new Namibia.
In some ways, independence came at a difficult time, because Africa has been somewhat marginalised in aid terms. The counter attractions of east and central Europe, the retreat from lending by the private banks, and now the Gulf war are bound to affect the economy of the country, which has no indigenous oil resources. However, there is much in favour of Namibia. I remind the House of the conclusions of the International Monetary Fund survey in January this year, which was extremely optimistic about the future, and which stated:
Overall, Namibia is well placed for economic development, in part because of the extensive infrastructure that it has inherited. The nation also has a strong resource base that offers substantial economic potential. The lifting of economic sanctions after Namibia became independent also provides important new growth opportunities. At the same time, prudent fiscal policies and policies conducive to boosting investment will be critical to the nation's aim of reactivating its economy.
I hope that that will be reflected in the current three-day seminar on private sector investment in that country.
I have mentioned national reconciliation. Obviously, there is also the need for external assistance if democracy is to flourish and if the grand human rights provisions in the constitution, which go far beyond that which is basic in international conventions, are able properly to be implemented. The economy of Namibia is still very skewed. There is an enormous disproportion in income, which must make democracy in the western Sense extremely difficult. For example, the whites, who comprise 5 per cent. of the population, have a personal gross domestic product of about $16,500. Non-whites in economic urban sectors have a personal GDP of about $750 per annum, and most subsistence farmers have an annual gross domestic product of about $85. That gives some idea of the problems and disparities in trying to provide adequate democracy in a developing country in which there are such gross disproportions in income.
I hope that we shall do what we can to bring together what is now in one country the first and third worlds, side by side. The problems, as related to me by Namibian friends, include the fact that the country is still largely relying on the old pre-independence administrative personnel who have constitutional guarantees to remain. The new Namibia needs enormous training and help in administration. Is the Minister for Overseas Development satisfied with the adequacy of aid from external donors? Is the co-ordination adequate?
On education, 60 per cent. of the people are illiterate. The problem of English language teaching has already been mentioned, but it has repercussions in two sectors. First, staff in the current teacher force are mostly under-trained for its needs. There must be continuous in-service training for the teacher force. Secondly, there is

the problem that the young people coming into education do not speak English. That poses the problem of deciding when they should begin to learn the English language. I trust that, in view of our special contribution, we shall look into that. The British Council published a report in April 1989 on the problems of Namibian education. I fear that the British Government have been somewhat slow off the starting block, but I look forward to a major contribution in that sector, particularly in subjects such as maths, which is affected by the legacy of apartheid when black pupils were assigned a low status.
It was not only expenditure on the road infrastructure which led to Namibia's indebtedness, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North suggested. The cause was also the apartheid education structure, which had 11 administrations and the duplication of administration and teaching effort which derived from it.
Fishing has been mentioned this evening. I understand that the Government are awaiting a response from the Namibian authorities. Fishing is basic to the economy. It is necessary to patrol the 200-mile zone and enforce the fishing regulations. I am told that Spanish vessels, for example, are particularly notorious for entering the waters, and Namibia needs assistance in that matter.
Security Council resolution 432, which our Government supported, calls for the early reintegration of Walvis bay into Namibia. Yet we are now a year on from independence and there has been no progress. The Government talk of a softly, softly approach. It would be helpful to know what the pressures are, and how intense and at what level they are being exerted.
What are the prospects? The Namibian of 27 January this year said that the Afrikaans press in South Africa had suggested that there should be some Hong Kong-type solution or that there should be some joint administration between the Namibians and the South Africans. It is claimed that in a weekly Afrikaans newspaper Pik Botha said that there was no possibility of reintegration of Walvis bay into Namibia in the near future. That may or may not be an exact quotation, but it would be helpful to know from the Government whether they believe that there is a real threat from the South African authorities.
To turn to the broader political considerations, clearly the whole sub-region of southern Africa has a stake in Namibia's success. Will it be a negative or a positive model? I am sure that if independence had gone wrong, if the whites had been driven out of Namibia, and if there had been an economic disaster, Namibia would have been headline news in Britain and elsewhere. Part of the success story is that Namibia has not been in the headlines. Namibians have got on with the job of building their new country. It has been a model of prudent nation-building for South Africa and anyone else who cares to examine it.
Our Namibian friends and Commonwealth colleagues should be assured that there is enormous cross-party good will in Britain. We should all be ready to respond sensitively and in appropriate measure to the developing needs of our newly independent country.

Mrs. Chalker: With the leave of the House, I will respond to what hon. Members will agree has been an excellent debate. We may not have agreed 100 per cent. with everything that has been said from either side, but there has been a greater degree of unanimity, for all the


right reasons, in this debate than I can recall seeing for a long time. That has been a most welcome aspect of our proceedings because not only has it been an ambition of mine to see the end of apartheid while I was serving in the Foreign Office, but I know that it has been the lifetime work of many hon. Members.
For many years, hon. Members on both sides have believed that apartheid was wrong and should go as soon as possible. I include among those my right hon. Friend the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher), who said so, sometimes defiantly, and who worked to ensure that changes would come about. I refer, of course, to the sort of changes that were heralded in an outstanding speech at the opening of the South African Parliament last Friday by President de Klerk.
The hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike), who has worked assiduously for Namibian independence, said that the United Nations role had been much more than monitoring, and he was right. The United Kingdom played a major role in the UNTAG performance, which was perhaps towards the end of the process. At first, the western contact group drew up the settlement plan, and the United Nations then came into its role. I have a personal friend who worked on that group back in the 1970s. I am sure that she and many like her longed for that day in March last year, which at long last came.

Mr. George Foulkes: There has been an omission from the debate. Credit should be paid to the late Bernot Carlsson for the part he played in the process. I hope that the right hon. Lady will agree about that and will put the record right.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman gives me new information, and I am sure he is right. Had he been trying to catch me out, he would have sat on the Opposition Front Bench to make that comment. I gladly join him in paying that tribute, although there are many, too numerous to mention, to whom tribute should be paid.
The major contribution that we were able to make to UNTAG was timely, and I refer not only to our £17 million financial contribution. It was, as a Namibian told me last week, what people on the ground did in the signals unit that we sent to Namibia. There were 150 people—149 men and one woman—55 election monitors and a team of fingerprint experts. They were praised not only for the work that they went to Namibia to do but for the extra that they gave in the whole process leading up to independence.
Independence has succeeded and tonight we are discussing the Bill which extends the Commonwealth provisions to Namibia. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd), my hon. Friends and Opposition Members referred in particular to the two outstanding problems that must be tackled—Walvis bay and debt repayment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Sir G. Gardiner) said, rightly, that discussions are proceeding between the Governments of Namibia and of the Republic of South Africa about Walvis bay. Those discussions have been on a sensible, low-key, bilateral basis and we have not sought to play a role in them. We have asked what I hope have been helpful questions and made points, but we have not played a direct role. Such a role is not ours to play.
Resolution 432 talked about early reintegration, and that we fully support. But in wishing to see that occur, we must proceed by way of encouragement. I believe that prospects exist for a solution. The hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) questioned me about that. I shall check on the quotation that he said was attributed to the South African Foreign Minister when I am in South Africa next week visiting projects there. We are keen to see the problem resolved, as I believe are many members of the South African Government. There must be sensible discussions about all the elements of Walvis bay and, until that problem is resolved, I well understand that people will feel that Namibia's complete independence has not been achieved.
It is interesting to note that the Namibian Government have said that they accept the inherited debt as a sovereign obligation. Throughout the time that I have been dealing with the matter, I have been impressed by the number of times members of the Namibian Government and other Namibians have told me how determined that country is to stand on its own feet—that includes dealing with its debt. It has provided, in its 1990 budget, for servicing the debt and for repayment of it, but I am sure that the Namibians, who are fully prepared to negotiate with South Africa over the debt that they inherited from the former South African Administration, will find ready listeners in the international community and in South Africa in dealing with this. We must work on tackling that problem.
None of Namibia's requirements, with a new Government facing a difficult challenge, will succeed unless Namibia achieves growth. Namibia wants to create growth for itself and it wants to achieve that through investment. That is why I was particularly pleased last Friday to sign, on behalf of the Commonwealth Development Corporation, and with the chairman of the National Planning Commission, Dr. "Z", the agreement for the CDC to invest in Namibia. We signed that code because we wanted to give the CDC the freedom to invest in the sort of projects that everyone knows will bring employment and prosperity to the people of Namibia. It was the first of its kind for Namibia. As the hon. Member for Swansea, East remarked, an investment seminar began yesterday that will attract many people to invest in a country that wants to thrive by its own efforts—investment is necessary for that.
I was asked during the debate about other ways in which Namibia could get itself on its feet. Tourism is one. I was most impressed by the way in which Namibia, hosting SADCC for the first time since it became a member, put up displays in the hall, not only of the places that one might expect to see and of wild animals in the bush, but of the quite fantastic Skeleton coast. Without wishing to sound like a travel agent for Namibia, I can say that there will be plenty for all to enjoy in a country that welcomes visitors and makes them happy while they are there. Tourism is, therefore, an industry from which perhaps the CDC and certainly others will find a ready return on investment.
Education is a fundamental aspect of our training programme, not only in English, but in other subjects, too. The hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred to two specialists in the Ministry of Education. I assure her that that is not all that we are doing. The Namibian Government asked us to focus on English language education and wanted the advisers in the Ministry of Education. This year we are also granting 21 awards for


English teachers and we shall be doing more next year. We are helping with education planning, teacher training, the reform of the examination system, and the higher education commission. We have been training students at Moray house and Selly Oak college in this country. We are now considering what to do with the resources to fit in with the Namibian Government's plans. One should never forget that they have inherited 11 different education systems which have to be bound together to form just one. That is a major problem to tackle.
I have arranged that the ODA's chief education adviser will lead the sector mission to Namibia planned for April this year to programme the further educational assistance.
Finally, in this current financial year we are spending approaching £1 million on more than 140 training awards for Namibians studying in Britain. Therefore, a great deal is already being done in the education sector.

Mr. Anderson: The Minister may be aware that, in addition to that which is being done formally by the British Government, a number of private agencies are equally involved. Moray house has been mentioned and Sheena Johnston is currently in Namibia preparing a report on pre-school education. There is a great range of private and public effort in this area.

Mrs. Chalker: The hon. Gentleman anticipates my remarks about the private educational effort. I could fill the remaining 15 minutes of the debate talking about education in Namibia and some of the ways in which different groups are trying to meet the complicated educational needs of the increasing young population there.
I also pay tribute to the work of the British Council in Namibia which the hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) mentioned and which I visited on Friday. It has a real role to play which is increasing fast. I am sure that its contribution will be second to none in helping Namibians to broaden their experience of the English language, through culture and music in particular, and in other ways which will add to their life. Many native languages are spoken in that country and the binding nature of the English language, through culture and music, is important.
There are many other ways in which we wish to help Namibia. We already have the police training programme and the public service reforms which I have mentioned. We are helping, through Christian Aid, some projects run by the repatriation, resettlement and reconstruction committee which helps the returnees to reintegrate into Namibian life.
At the end of last year we had a health identification mission in Namibia and we shall be getting involved in primary health care training, working with Oxfam and the CIIR. We are currently at the design stage.
There is no doubt that there are other areas in which we need to assist. We have already financed an initial study on fisheries management to which I referred briefly yesterday in answer to the hon. Member for Burnley. We have offered to provide further assistance in fisheries, but we are awaiting a response from the Namibian Government. I asked them last week to let us know kow that consideration was proceeding.
We are considering particular opportunities to assist the agricultural sector. I hope to arrange a further visit by an agriculture expert to take that forward in the next couple of months.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley rather pooh-poohed the fact that we must send people to Namibia to find out what needs to be done, but to meet the requirements and wishes of the Namibian Government much consultation is needed. By the end of March we shall have spent £2 million during the first year of the programme. We have more to do, but we have tried to lay the foundation for each of the projects thoroughly by sending our advisers out, discussing with the Government of Namibia and now pushing projects forward through the national planning commission. That commission will need help from us, but much basic training is needed on agriculture methodology if the people, particularly those in the northern part of Ovamboland, are to realise their ambition—to get a secure living from the land.
The hon. Member for Swansea, East was right about the importance of irrigation and we are looking with the Namibians at their irrigation needs. I cannot yet tell the House whether that will result in projects, but we have told the Namibian Government that we are ready to help. In that way, we may do some good work in irrigation and agriculture for 1·6 million people.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley asked about a Community fisheries agreement with Namibia. We have lent our weight to such a proposal, but have only just received the Commission's first draft. Nevertheless, we shall give it urgent consideration. Namibia's fisheries programme is of great importance because it will provide a major source of income, as long as the fish are not stolen. Devising the fisheries protection area for the Namibian coast will be complicated, and the area will then need the policing that it has not enjoyed until now. The income that Namibia will derive from that sector will be enhanced once a fisheries agreement is reached with the European Community.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley suggested that £10 million of funding over three years is not enough. It is easy to make such a comment, but also inaccurate. Namibia is still assessing its own priorities. We are willing to spend money there, because we want to help, but there is no way that we will impose upon Namibia assistance that it does not want, or ideas and priorities of our own. Namibia must decide its own priorities and devise its own ideas. We will help, but we must not impose our own concepts on that country. That is why our programme of assistance must he given a proper basis and be properly organised.
Given the size and spread of Namibia's population, we must give careful thought to how best to spend money. It would not be sensible, in view of the scattered population, to build schools across the country—but it would be sensible to invest in educational broadcasting, which would cover areas that teachers cannot normally reach. That £10 million will be well spent.
The hon. Lady referred also to a reduction in European Community aid for the Southern African Development Co-ordination Conference, but she probably has not studied the figures in detail. In fact, it was at the SADCC that I met so many Namibians last week, both at the conference and in their own offices. A larger element of funds for regional projects has been kept in reserve by the Community for SADCC. The director-general of DGVIII was present at that conference and there were constructive


discussions with the national planning commission and with European Commission representatives about how Namibia wants to spend the resources available to it. There is also a special budget line, in addition to the funds available from the European development fund.
It is important to ensure the most efficient use of regional funds. There is no intention to downgrade the importance of SADCC in Community spending, and certainly not when that spending relates to the newest member of both SADCC and the Commonwealth.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred to the fourth Lomé convention. The order that allows the United Kingdom to ratify that measure was laid before the House last month and no doubt we will debate it soon. We cannot sign the convention before the House gives its approval. I would have been quite wrong to do otherwise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Mr. Bottomley) made a very interesting speech tonight, which had breadth, depth and vision. One aspect of his speech which struck me was what he said about the importance of developing democracy. Namibia gives us a new opportunity. Democracy is about people's lives, as is the development of Namibia.
While I was in Namibia last week I studied some of the Namibian Government's undertakings and I was interested to find out how they were working forward under the independence constitution. The Namibian Government have begun work on devising boundaries for regional and local government. They have appointed a commission to determine constituencies for future regional and national elections, and an Overseas Development Administration finance adviser has assisted the commission.
The regions will elect representatives to a second Chamber of the National Assembly during 1991 or 1992 and the elected representatives will then replace the 13

temporary regional commissioners, who have been appointed by the Government. This is a good development in the process of democracy and one which other countries, inside and outside the Commonwealth, that are looking for greater democracy would do well to copy.
During the debate I was asked about human rights, which are an essential part of the democracy which Namibia is seeking to achieve. That is why we have made it clear, during police training given in Namibia, that all police forces should operate on the basis of full respect for human rights and the rule of law. That is a basic objective of all our police training programmes throughout Africa and especially with the Namibian police.
We have had a good debate tonight, and it has also been interesting and thoughtful. Namibia is a most welcome new member of the Commonwealth. It is seeking to overcome some enormous problems, has to face serious financial problems, and has a large bureaucracy which, as it freely admits, is not efficient. We are seeking to help Namibia to face those problems and deal with them. That is why a permanent secretary from the former Department of Health and Social Security—now retired—has spent a considerable time helping to achieve the civil service reforms which Namibia needs if it is to have the sound independence that it is seeking.
From all that I have seen and heard about the newest member of the Commonwealth, I am confident that it is working its way towards a truly successful end to the long process of independence. We wish Namibia well and I hope that the House will give the Bill a Second Reading tonight and allow it to proceed swiftly on to the statute book so that Namibia, our 50th member of the Commonwealth, is fully covered by all the provisions which our law should provide for it.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.— [Mr. Wood.]

Committee tomorrow.

European Standing Committee A

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That at the meeting of European Standing Committee A on Wednesday 6th February, the provisions of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees), so far as they relate to the adjournment of the committee at One o'clock, shall not apply.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In this wonderful democratic system, we have two minutes in which to discuss a vital constitutional issue. Tomorrow, the Standing Committee dealing with European instruments will be given time to discuss a vital milk quota agreement which the Government say is damaging the country, and which they have said that they will fight all the way. Is it sensible or tolerable to consider the motion to extend the sitting, given that the issue was settled yesterday in Brussels? We, the members of the Committee, have for two days been studying an issue that has already been agreed.
Let me ask a second question. How can it make sense for us to agree to discuss a motion to congratulate the Government on opposing a proposal to which, yesterday, they agreed without discussion? Thirdly, will you, Mr. Speaker, look at the motion passed by the House of Commons on 24 October, which stated that if a Minister agrees to an issue without its being considered by the Standing Committee he must come to the House and explain why at the earliest opportunity?
Sadly, this is yet another sign—we have had two such signs already—of the Government's treating European Community legislation with contempt—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

RADIOACTIVE MATERIAL (ROAD TRANSPORT) BILL [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Radioactive Material (Road Transport) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of—

(1) any sums required by the Secretary of State for making payments by way of remuneration, allowances or otherwise to inspectors appointed by him under the Act, and
(2) any other expenses incurred by the Secretary of State in consequence of the provisions of the Act.—[Mr. Wood.]

Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill [Money]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Children and Young Persons (Protection from Tobacco) Bill, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increase attributable to that Act in the sums so payable under any other Act.—[Mr. Wood.]

Mr. Bob Cryer: I know, Mr. Speaker, that you would be saddened if money resolutions such as this went through on the nod, with no contribution from the Floor of the House. I shall be brief, however. This useful Bill—promoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds); the constituency used to be called Smethwick—is minor but important. It provides local authorities with moneys to help finance the enforcement of existing legislation to prevent children under 16 from purchasing cigarettes, and to ensure that those who break up cigarette packets and sell the cigarettes singly to children of that age are prosecuted. This is a means of enforcing the law to stop children from embarking on the disastrous smoking habit that loses us so many lives each year.
The Bill is modest. It does not, for example, tackle the problem of sporting events being used to advertise smoking materials, as many are: tobacco companies trespass their way on to our television screens, although the advertising has received no direct finance and, indeed, smoking advertising has been banned on television.
I welcome the money resolution. As I said when we debated the Bill on the first Friday of the Session for private Members' Bills, local authorities need adequate financing to ensure that local government officers in, for example, Bradford—a local authority that is trying to provide services in the face of considerable difficulties, given its limited central Government grant—have the additional resources that the Bill will require. They are naturally keen to enforce such legislation.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: And Bolsover.

Mr. Cryer: Bolsover, like many other areas, will require those additional facilities for the benefit of the community.

Mr. John Home Robertson: I understood that the money resolution would go through on the nod, but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bradford, South (Mr. Cryer) has said a few words, let me do so as well. I apologise on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Warley, East (Mr. Faulds), who cannot be here, despite his obvious interest in the matter. As one of the Bill's sponsors, let me register my strong support for its objectives; it is a vital measure which could save the lives of many young people.
In 1986, I presented a similar Bill, the Protection of Children (Tobacco) Bill. Sadly, it did not go as far as we hoped to protect young people from this poisonous menace. I welcome the money resolution, which will, I hope, ensure that my hon. Friend's Bill will be more effective.

Question put and agreed to.

Miscarriage and Stillbirth

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John M. Taylor.]

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I am most grateful for the opportunity to raise this very distressing subject in the House this evening. I am grateful to the Table Office for helping me with the wording of this motion. It says "women suffering miscarriages and stillbirths", and that is exactly what women do.
First, I would like to acknowledge the help that I have received in preparing for this debate from Christine Moulder, who has written a book on miscarriage, and also from the Miscarriage Association.
I want to kick off with one or two definitions. Doctors call all miscarriages "spontaneous abortions"—very different from induced abortions. "Miscarriage", in the present context, is the spontaneous loss of a foetus and stillbirth is the loss of a baby over 28 weeks.
I am very well aware that there are some unwanted pregnancies and that, with these women, a miscarriage can often come as a blessed relief. I realise that, but I do not wish to touch any further on that particular aspect tonight. So why raise this subject at all?
Miscarriage is astonishingly common. At least 30 per cent. of pregnant women experience the loss of a conceived baby before the seventh month of pregnancy. That is hundreds of thousands of babies. This is bad enough, but there is massive bitterness and anger among women who miscarry. Why is this? There are two main reasons.
First, the whole subject seems to be taboo, and where there is silence there is ignorance. I do not want to turn miscarriage into something suitable for gossip on social occasions; it is far too important a subject for that. But everyone in this country will have a friend, a relative or a wife who has miscarried and it is much better to talk about it with sympathy and understanding than to try to sweep
The second reason is the attitude of some in the medical profession. It is most certainly not my aim to take a swipe at the medical profession in general terms. But there are far too many instances of neglect, indifference and sometimes downright cruelty. I quote some comments from women who have had miscarriages on the treatment they received at the hands of the medical profession:
Doctors don't care. They turn you out of hospital and don't even bother to talk to you.
This is a comment from a woman who miscarried at 12 weeks:
I saw the foetus and kept it in a dish for the doctor to see. He glanced at it to see that I had had a complete miscarriage than he casually flushed it down the loo. Life is absolute hell. I feel hurt, angry and completely in the dark. If anyone else says, 'Never mind, you can have another', or, 'It's natures way of telling you something was wrong with the baby', I shall scream!
Another women said:
Why didn't any doctor bother to tell me what to do when I had a miscarriage? Why did no one warn me I might haemorrhage? How was I to know the dangers?
Yet another wrote:
It happened 17 years ago, but I have never got over it. The depression lasted years and nearly broke up my marriage. All because no one talked to me about it.
Finally, perhaps the most harrowing story of all:
The consultant was sweet. My own doctor was superb.

But the staff at the hospital were horrible. They said, 'You haven't really lost a baby. It was nothing much at this stage. Why are you making so much fuss?' I had five hours of excruciating pain, much worse than childbirth, then no one talked to me or told me a thing. I didn't know what they had done with the dead baby—thrown it in the incinerator, I suppose. Then they wheeled me down the main ward through all the happy mothers holding their new babies. A girl in the next bed was there for an abortion. She asked me, 'Are you here to get rid of yours?' If I had been able to get off the trolley, I would have dragged her out of bed and knocked her down.
From all this one can only assume that there are too many members of the medical profession who see miscarriage simply as just another physical condition that needs such-and-such treatment. That is a very grave misjudgment. What a woman who has had a miscarriage has suffered is a bereavement, for which grief and mourning are entirely appropriate.
In a recent survey members of the Miscarriage Association revealed that 80 per cent. of them were left feeling angry and bitter by their experiences. Of those, no fewer than 66 per cent. thought that the medical treatment that they had had was inadequate, even poor. These women complained that they received no information, no counselling and no advice. Often after a miscarriage a woman goes home to relatives who, though well meaning, carefully avoid the subject, just at the time when she most needs to talk about it.
So what is to be done? I should like to put the following six suggestions to the Minister. The first is pre-natal care. When women first go to see their general practitioner at the start of a pregnancy they should be told about the possibility of a miscarriage, what it is and what happens. I realise very well that there will be women who at the start of a pregnancy are very happy and that they will not want to hear about even the possibility of a miscarriage. Nevertheless, I feel that they should be told about it.
My second suggestion relates to scans. Access to scans needs to be improved, especially in an emergency. That includes weekends. We all know that emergencies almost always arise at weekends, or at bank holidays or in the middle of the night. Scan operators should be allowed to tell their patients the results as soon as possible, not hours later when the information often has to be relayed through doctors and consultants back to the woman concerned.
My third suggestion concerns disposal arrangements —a very sensitive issue. The loss should be treated with respect and dignity, not just flushed down the lavatory or consigned to the incinerator with the rest of the hospital waste. This is not a waste product.
Fourthly, there is the question of follow-up care. Many women are sent away from hospital without a single word of explanation or comfort. What came across to me very strongly when I was making my preparations for this debate was that very many women would have felt much better if only someone at the hospital had perhaps held their hand, or put an arm round them and just offered some words of comfort. It does not cost anything to do that, nor does it take much time. These women should be given the opportunity to discuss what has happened with an informed and, above all, sympathetic health professional. Some women will need access to skilled counsellors, although this is rarely available. I referred, in one of my anecdotes, to one woman who said that the depression following a miscarriage lasted for 17 years. Every health authority should plan the provision of


follow-up care involving both hospital services and community services. There are practical matters too on which a woman will need advice. How long can she expect her bleeding to continue after miscarriage? Should she use tampons or sanitary towels? Nobody tells her. How can she know? Not only is she left prey to depression and anxiety and, very often, a great deal of physical pain, but she does not even know the answers to such questions.
The fifth suggestion concerns statistics. Detailed miscarriage statistics according to class and region are not available. I realise the difficulties, but even an approximation would be very helpful.
The sixth, and final, suggestion relates to the Miscarriage Association. This association does excellent work. However good the health service provision, many women need the support and information that only such a support group can give. The Miscarriage Association has branches in various places all over the country. Its headquarters is in Yorkshire. It could do so much more. Its founder recounted that, at the beginning, she was on the telephone until the small hours of the morning. She said that she did not get out of her nightdress until about tea time. Her phone rang and rang and rang. She talked to desperate women who had suffered miscarriage and who wanted to talk to someone about their experiences.
I am afraid that my hon. Friend the Minister is looking slightly uncomfortable when I talk about money. I know that the Miscarriage Association, like many other organisations promoting worthy causes, has approached him. Nevertheless, I press upon him the excellent work that it does.
I hope that in dealing with this subject tonight I have done two things: first, raised public consciousness of this extremely important but much-ignored matter; secondly, drawn attention to the fact that those who have suffered miscarriage need not fear rejection at the hands of the public, or of their friends, or of their spouses, or feel that in some way they have failed.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Stephen Dorrell): The House will agree that my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson), in raising what he has quite rightly described as a difficult subject, has done us a service. As he made clear, miscarriage is an event that occurs in the lives of many families in this country. It is not as uncommon as one might like to think. My hon. Friend, by raising the issue, has achieved his objective of increasing awareness, in this House and outside, of the problem and of encouraging the idea that a family in which there has been a miscarriage or a stillbirth should not suffer the sense of rejection or of guilt that very often typifies that event.
I should like to begin by setting the subject in context. As my hon. Friend rightly said, although it is rarely discussed, miscarriage happens much more often than public discussion would suggest. In the nature of things, it is not an event that lends itself to central statistical measurement. My hon. Friend sought better statistics, but, of his six items, that is one of the more difficult to respond to as miscarriages are not always the subject of sufficiently detailed medical intervention to allow accurate reporting.
Estimates exist on how often miscarriages happen. The best estimate is that between one in three and one in five

conceptions end in miscarriage. My hon. Friend is right to say that it is far from being an unusual or uncommon occurrence.
Happily, stillbirth is much less common. Obviously, however, it is much more traumatic for the family to whom it happens. Stillbirth lends itself to statistical measurement. I am happy to say that the statistics reflect a substantial success story for the health service since its inception. In 1948, there were just over 23 stillbirths per thousand live births, but by 1989 the figure had fallen to 4·7 per thousand. That is a substantial reduction in the incidence of stillbirth, and it reflects a similar reduction in perinatal deaths in Britain.
The reduction in the incidence of stillbirth and perinatal death is an important public health objective of the health service. We have achieved substantial reductions since 1948, which has continued in the 1980s. We are not complacent about that; there is still substantial variation between and within regions, and the opportunity exists for further reduction in the incidence of that unhappy event. We have made substantial progress and are committed to seeking to continue to improve on that record.
My hon. Friend rightly stressed the need for individuals who have suffered a miscarriage or stillbirth in their family to be encouraged to talk openly about it and to understand the physiological and psychological implications of what has happened. My hon. Friend also rightly stressed that good public health education should ensure that women who suffer a miscarriage understand the physiological consequences of miscarriage. We should try to ensure that if a woman suffers a miscarriage she is aware of the danger of haemorrhaging, that she takes the necessary medical advice, and that she recognises the symptoms. That should be one of the objectives of our health education programme. I shall seek to ensure that the objective that my hon. Friend raised is achieved.
My hon. Friend is right to say that not only must we concentrate on the physiological implications but we must ensure that couples have the opportunity to understand the psychological pressures which miscarriage can cause. My hon. Friend described feelings of bitterness and anger. That is true. An individual may feel angry and bitter and, perhaps more powerfully, may feel guilty, looking back over the past three, six or nine months and saying, "What did I do which led to the conception not being brought to a successful delivery?" It is to try to provide an outlet for such questioning that proper social support should exist for women who suffer a miscarriage or stillbirth.
My hon. Friend was anxious not to take a swipe, as he put it, at insensitive health professionals. I would be much less circumspect about that. If a health professional was insensitive, I would be happy to see a swipe taken at that person, because it should be part of the training of all health professionals to remember that, although they are dealing with something that they understand and they regard as routine, the patient may not understand it and will definitely not regard it as routine. Therefore, in every instance the health professional should treat the patient with great sensitivity.
I believe that professionals in the National Health Service set themselves a standard of sensitivity which they meet. The standard of professional service offered through the NHS is very high in the great majority of cases, but my hon. Friend is right to draw attention to instances of insensitive treatment, not least in order to ensure that


those who are responsible for clinical standards within the health service are aware of such instances and use them to try to ensure that they do not recur.
My hon. Friend also stressed the importance of follow-up care by ensuring that there is available not only professional health expertise but also the social support that is necessary to restore confidence and encourage the sufferer back into a full normal life. My hon. Friend mentioned the role of social workers, and hospital social workers in particular, in providing that support. They are important and play a valuable role. Hospital chaplains and the generality of social workers also play an important role, as do general practitioners. All involved in offering health and social care to the community have a role to play in ensuring that those who suffer miscarriage or stillbirth understand and are helped to work through the implications. I acknowledge the work of health professionals and of social workers in offering support.
I also pay tribute to the work done by the voluntary sector, particularly in support of sufferers. My hon. Friend mentioned the work of the Miscarriage Association, to which I will return. It is also proper to mention the work of the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society and of other voluntary bodies working in this sphere, notably Cruse —bereavement care—and the Partnership of Child Loss Support Groups, all of which are active and all of which receive public support through the section 64 grant programme to the voluntary sector. They are all active in providing precisely the kind of support for which my hon. Friend rightly and properly calls.
I want to refer briefly to a couple of points raised by my hon. Friend about the disposal of the results of miscarriage or of stillbirth. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to stress that sensitive handling should be regarded as a high priority. He rightly says that the remains are not waste products and must not be handled as such. They are certainly not regarded in that light by the bereaved parents. The Government are on record as accepting that we should change the definition of stillbirth so that it is brought in line with the law on abortion. We have made it clear that we are sympathetic to the proposition that a

foetus that is born dead after 24 weeks should be entitled to the protection of the rules that currently operate for stillbirths after 28 weeks.
Disposal and the other handling of these tissues in hospitals are factors that should be addressed by the guidelines which the Stillbirth and Neonatal Death Society has drawn up in collaboration with professional bodies in the voluntary sector and which my hon. Friend the Minister for Health will launch on 27 February. I hope that my hon. Friend will feel that our welcome to those guidelines represents a degree of interest in the importance of setting standards for the proper and sensitive handling of these issues.
My hon. Friend referred to the work of the Miscarriage Association. He will know that the Department of Health has provided support to that body since 1986 under the terms of the section 64 scheme which provides support to voluntary bodies from the health budget. In the current financial year, the association has received a grant of £4,000 and the Department is now considering two applications from the association for the next three years. We are considering, first, the renewal of core grant towards central administrative costs and, secondly, a project funding application to make information about miscarriage accessible to any woman who has suffered a miscarriage, including those from ethnic minority groups —a target group that is of special importance in ensuring the understanding of the full physiological and psychological consequences of these events. I want to place particular importance on ensuring that we get through to ethnic minority groups as part of our target population.
My hon. Friend will appreciate that it is too early to divulge the outcome of those applications. However, they are being considered and I can assure him that they will be considered sympathetically. As I have stressed, the Department recognises and values the role of voluntary bodies in providing the support that families need when they suffer such an instance. We have supported a range of voluntary organisations in this area in the past and we intend to continue to do so. We shall consider very sympathetically the applications currently in from the Miscarriage Association.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-seven minutes to Eleven o'clock.